Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2549 2017 SLD 2549 2017 YLR 2419
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 4985-P of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 21-6-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE, SHAKEEL AHMAD, JUSTICE
Muhammad Farooq Afridi for Petitioners. Rab Nawaz Khan, A.A.G. for
Respondents.

SHAHID KHAN AND 3 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 155 & 249-A---Information in non-cognizable cases---Investigation without permission of Magistrate---Effect---Quashing of FIR---Scope---Information with regard to commission of non-cognizable offence was to be entered in a book prescribed as 'Roznamcha' or 'Station Diary'---Police was not to initiate any action with regard to such offence and complainant or informant after having a copy of said report was to be sent away---If Station House Officer deemed it fit to initiate investigation then police had to take permission of the Magistrate---Provision of S.155(2), Cr.P.C. requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation of a non-cognizable offence was mandatory in nature---If any arrest was to be made then it could only be made after obtaining warrant of arrest from the Magistrate---When law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, it ought to be done in that manner or not at all---Mandatory provision of law had been violated by the police by registering the FIR against the petitioner in a non-cognizable offence without following the prescribed procedure---Availability of alternate remedy would not bar the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a petition under Art.199 of the Constitution---Aggrieved person was not to be directed to first avail remedy under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. when impugned order suffered from want of jurisdiction or was void ab initio or had been passed in disregard of law---Each criminal case was to be judged on its own merit---If there was no probability of accused being convicted of any offence and proceedings before the Trial Court were allowed to continue would be an abuse of process of Court, wastage of time and a futile exercise then FIR should be quashed---Further proceedings in the present case would be a wastage of time and prosecution was not likely to succeed---FIR was ordered to be quashed in circumstances---Constitutional petition was allowed. Irshad Begum and others v. The State PLD 1961 Lah. 882; Hussain Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1963 W.P. Lah. 46; Muhammad Rashid v. The State PLD 1964 Kar. 381; Muhammad Bashir alias Doba v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 574; Sabz Ali Khan…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492