Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 3865 of 1982, decided on 28th February, .1983.
-- S. 154-First Information Report, lodging of-Officer Incharge of a police station, held, under legal obligation to enter information, disclos ing commission of cognizable offence in appropriate Register and to conduct investigation in case so registered-Such officer, held further, however, at liberty to report about cancellation of case if ultimately found baseless.
R. A. Awan for Petitioner.
Syed H. M. Naqvi for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 20th February, 1983.
This Constitutional Petition has been submitted by Ghias-ud-Din peti tioner who is resident of Pindi Bhattian, Tehsil Hafizabad, seeking a direction against the respondent i.e. the Station House Officer, Police Station Pindi Bhattian, Tehsil Hafizabad, for the registration of a criminal case against Abdul Rashid, Abdul Wahid, Marghoob Ahmad, Abdul Qayyum and Kamal Din, for the offences of criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, extortion, criminal house-trespass and rioting etc.
2. It is alleged that a shop bearing No. M. V. 1S-131 situate in Main Bazar Pindi Bhattian belonged to Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa, the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner used to run vegetable shop, in the premises. Adbul Rashid, one of the alleged accused, a joint owner of the shop, wanted to dis possess the petitioner from the shop and, therefore, on the night intervening 16/17-9-1982, the said Abdul Rashid accompanied by his sons Abdul Wahid and Marghoob Ahmad, and also Abdul Qayyum and Kamal Din, their friends, emerged at the scene armed with revolvers etc. They caught hold of the petitioner, broke open the locks of the shop and took away all the articles lying there in a Rehrah (cart). They also dealt fist blows to the petitioner and forcibly dispossessed him from the shop. He was also held out threats of murder. He was thus deprived of cash amounting to Rs. 1,850 besides clothes, beddings and vegetables etc. It is further alleged that the petitioner submitted a written complaint (Annexure A) to respondent, the contents whereof disclosed the commission of cognizable offences but the respondent declined to register the case.
3. A report was called from the respondent .who maintained that on receipt of application (Annexure A), the accused were called at the police station. During the enquiry it transpired that 15/ 16 share of the shop belonged to Abdul Rashid while 1/16 share belonged to Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa. The shop was previously in possession of a tenant named Ghulam Hussain against whom Abdul Rashid filed ejectment application. The said Ghulam Hussain effected compromise and delivered the possession of the shop to Abdul Rashid on 2-9-1982. Thus the allegation to the effect that the alleged accused persons forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from shop were incorrect. Certified copies of the alleged ejectment petition, reply thereto and of the various orders passed in that connection by the learned Rent Controller were perused. It transpired that the petitioner's mother Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa had also filed a declaratory suit in the Civil Court at Hafizabad seeking a declaration to the effect that ejectment proceed ings were collusive and that she was exclusively in possession of the shop. The fact, however, remains that the written complaint (Annexure A) submitted by the petitioner to the respondent contains allegations about the commis sion of cognizable offences by the alleged accused persons, namely, Abdul Rashid, Abdul Wahid, Marghoob Ahmad, Abdul Qayyum and Kamal Din. Under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is under legal obligation to enter such information in the appropriate register and to conduct investigation in the case thus regis tered. He may, of course, after such investigation, send up the accused to the Court concerned for trial or report about the cancellation of the case if the H allegations are found to be baseless.
4. In view of the above, the -writ petition is allowed and the respon dent is directed to register a case on the basis of complaint (Annexure A) and to perform his statutory duties in relation thereto.
No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer