Find a Lawyer

[Lahore]

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S. 154--Provisional Constitution' Order (1 of 1981), Art.9-- Registration of case--Officer incharge of a Police Station, held, was under obligation to register a case pursuaw to an information given to him orally or in writing relating to commission of a cognizable offence.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

--S. 154--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9- Registration; of case--Allegations, made by complainant to' Police Officer, Incharge of Police ,Station, constituting a cognizable offence--Police Officer directed to register a case.

Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh for Petitioner

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 18th .February, 1984.

This Constitutional. petition seeks the issuance of a writ against the respondent i. e. S. H . O. police Station, , Rajana, ,District- Toba Tek Singh, directing him to register a case against the persons' mentioned in paragraph 7, of this Constitutional petition and try proceed therewith in accordance, with law.

2. It has been claimed by the petitioner, that, in March, 1953, he purchased residehtial Ahata No. 55 .measuring. Ili Marlas situated in Killa No.' 7 of Square No. 2/71 of Chak No. 285/G.B., fiehsil and district Toba Tek Singh (formerly .district Faisalabad) from Rukan Din etc., the owners of the aforesaid land through a registered. sale-deed, dated 24-3-1953.

3. In May, 1954, mutation about the aforesaid sale was also attested in favour of the petitioner. It has further been claimed by the petitioner that on 'the aforementioned site purchased by him from Rukan Din etc., he raised 10 shops and also constructed 6 Chaubaras thereon. The locality, which at the time of the sale in favour of the petitioner, was a deserted one, developed into a flourishing market of Rajana in due course. The vendors and their' successors' became greedy. The sale in favour of the petitioner a.s evidenced by the registered sale-deed and the mutation was not given effect. in .the revenue record in order to avail of this omission, Rukan ])in etc'. got involved the petitioner and his son in. a criminal case lodged by Muhammad Hanif claiming himself to be, a tenant under. itu4an Din. etc. In the meantime, the persons enuferated- in paragraph 7 of the under consideration Constitutional Petition trespassed into the shbp of the petitioner after having armed themselves. They broke open the lock of the shop and took away the belongings of the petitioner lying in the said shop including his knitting machine worth Rs.3,Od0 and sewing-machine worth about Rs.,600. Household articles lying in the Chaubara constructed on the shop were also stolen away by the said trespassers. The petitioner, thereafter approached the respondent who was the then S.H.O. Police Station, Rajana for registration of case against the culprits but he failed to do so, as earlier he in collusion with Ghulam Rasul etc. the successors . of Rukan Din etc. had registered a false case against the petitioner.

4. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner that the ahop:: ire question have been rented out by him to different persons. The electricity connections in' ease of the shops .constructed on the land, in iia ..te are said to be in the name of the petitioner.

5,. Report and parawise comments were called from the respondent. He maintained in his comments that the petitioner was not recorded as owner in the revenue record although civil and criminal litigation in regard' to the premises in dispute was already pending between the petitioner and Ghulam Rasul etc. He further averred that the petitioner was not in possession of any shop or Chaubara and no occurrence, as alleged by him, was reported by the petitioner to the respondent. .

The records of Electricity Department were called for in the Court. It transpired that the electricity connection for the premises in question were obtained in 1965 by Muhammad Siddique petitioner. In 1981, the account numbers were -changed as 2293 to 2299. In case of new account numbers also, the name of the petitioner has been recorded as consumer.

7. From the contents of Mutation No. 208, dated 21-5-1954 (Annexure ,D') it appears that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from Rukan Din etc. through a registered sale-deed. Vide Annexure 1E' petitioner obtained a declaratory decree against the Province of Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad, to .the effect that the petitioner had purchased the land in question vide Mutation No. 208, dated 21-5-1954 and that the defendant should make entries in the revenue

record to give effect to this sale.

8. During the course of hearing of this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has produced certified copy of the judgment, dated 31st July, 1983, passed by Magistrate First Class, Toba Tek Singh. As per contents of this judgment, the petitioner and his co-accused have been acquitted in the case which was registered against them though F.I.R. No. 227/82, dated 30-12-1982 mentioned in the parawise comments of the respondent.

9. Under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an Officer Incharge of a Police Station is under legal, obligation to register a case A pursuant to an information given to him orally or in writing relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.

10. The allegations as detailed in paragraph 7 of the under consideration Constitutional petition, do constitute cognizable, offence.

11. In the above circumstances, this Constitutional petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to register a case against the persons mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Constitutional petition) and, thereafter c to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. No orders

as to costs.

M . Y . H .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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