Find a Lawyer

Civil Miscellaneous No. 2615 in Writ Petition No. 4075 of 1982, decided on 6th November, 1982.

‑‑ S. 151‑Withdrawal of writ petition‑Petitioner wishing to withdraw writ petition on ground of matter having been amicably settled by way of compromise‑Allegations levelled in writ petition prima facie disclosing a cognizable offence, withdrawal of petition, held, against public interest‑Senior Superintendent of Police having been called upon by Court to report on allegations levelled in writ petition accusing third respondent having demand bribe on behalf of S. H. O. res pondent, Superintendent of Police failing to make report as called ‑for‑Diary register of Local dak maintained by Registry showing letter calling for comments from S. S. P. having been received in office of S. S. P. on 18‑10‑1982‑No reason to disbelieve statement of S. S. P. as to he having had no actual knowledge of order passed by Court Failure on part of S. S. P. in not furnishing report being not inten tional, no action proposed to be taken against him particularly in view of his assurance that he would take action on report of D. S. P. con cerned and for apologies tendered by him‑Writ petition, in circum stances, allowed to be withdrawn‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Khalil Ramday A. .A: G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

This is an application under section 151, C. P. C. seeking permission for the withdrawal of the writ petition wherein report was called for from the S. S. P. Lahore on the allegations levelled in the writ petition that respondent No. 3 demanded Rs. 5,000 on behalf of respondent No. I for extraneous consideration. .

2. I called, for the report of the S. S. P. for 6‑11‑1982. Respondent No. 2 was also summoned alongwith his report and parawise comments. Report of respondent No. 2 has been received wherein it is stated that on 11‑10‑1982, the petitioner lodged a report with him which was entered vide daily diary report No. 22 dated 11‑10‑1982 with Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore. It is further stated that on the same day, the petitioner approached the S. S. P. Lahore, who entrusted the enquiry to the D. S. P. Civil Lines, Lahore, and that since the matter is already under enquiry with the said D. S. P., the case will be registered, if ordered by the Senior Officers, in the light of the enquiry report.

3. Suffice it to say, that a Police Officer Incharge of the Police Station is under a statutory duty in terms of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reduce‑into writing every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. If the information relates to a non‑cognizable offence, the same is to be entered in the relevant register as envisaged by section 155 of the Code. For the performance of this statutory duty, no orders are required from the senior Police Officers.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner wishes to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that on the intervention of Anjman Tajran, Shadman Market, Lahore. the matter has been amicably settled by way of compromise and, therefore, the petitioner does not want to prosecute the matter. The allega tions levelled in the writ petition prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and, therefore, it would be against public interest to allow withdrawal of the writ petition. The S. S. P. failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and he was therefore, directed to appear in the Court and show cause for non‑compliance, of the orders of this Court. The S. S. P. respectfully submitted that he is on leave today due to sickness and, therefore, is not in a position to categorically state on what date the orders of the Court were actually received in his office. He however, submits that he had no knowledge of the orders passed by this Court on 16‑10‑1982 and it is only on this morning that he was informed by Mr. Khalil Ramday, the Assistant Advocate General. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was asked to give his report after checking the record as on what date the S. S. P. actually received the intima tion of the Court's order passed on 16‑10‑1982. According to the report of the Deputy Registrar, the Diary Register of Local Dak shows that the letter calling for the comments from the S. S. P. Lahore was actually received in the office of the S. S. P. on 18‑10‑1982. I have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the S. S. P. that he had no actual knowledge of the order passed by this Court. Notwithstanding this, since the order was duly communicated and received by his office on 18‑10‑1982, the S. S. P. is deemed to be informed in law. He alone is responsible for supervising the work and conduct of his subordinates and was bound to comply with the orders.

5. Be that as it may, it appears that failure on the part of the S. S. P. in not furnishing the report was not intentional. Therefore, I am not incline to take any action against him and also for the reason that he has made statement before me that in view of the allegations levelled in the writ petition he will take action in accordance with law on receipt of the report of the D. S. P. Civil Lines. No action is, therefore, called for against him. Even otherwise, he apologised for non‑compliance of the Court's order. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

S. A. H. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.