| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 579 2013 SLD 579 2013 PCRLJ 553 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-666 of 2012, decided on 18th July, 2012. DATE of hearing: 17th July, 2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON AND RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, JJ
Athar Abbas Solangi for Petitioner. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State counsel along with SIP Sadoro Khan Lashari, S.H.O. of Police Station Sanjar Bhatti for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. D-666 of 2012, decided on 18th July, 2012. DATE of hearing: 17th July, 2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON AND RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, JJ
Athar Abbas Solangi for Petitioner. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State counsel along with SIP Sadoro Khan Lashari, S.H.O. of Police Station Sanjar Bhatti for
Respondents.
MANTHAR ALI
VS
STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 3 others
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154,157,157(b),54
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Police Rules, 1934
Section: 24.4,24.7
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss.154 & 157---Police Rules, 1934, Ch. XXIV, Rr. 24.4 & 24.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Registration of F.I.R. for cross-versions---Scope---Station House Officer (SHO)/respondent conducted investigation into the incident and refused to register F.I.R. for the version advanced by the complainant (petitioner) on the grounds that in respect of the same incident proposed accused party had recorded an F.I.R., and complainant wanted to register a case falsely to pressurize the proposed accused party---Contentions of complainant were that opinion of SHO before lodging of F.I.R. and conducting investigation was beyond the scope of S.154, Cr.P.C.; that investigation was the function of the investigation officer and not the SHO, and that counter-version of complainant could be recorded and investigated in accordance with law---Validity---Once complainant conveyed information to the SHO regarding commission of cognizable offence, the SHO was duty bound to act in accordance with law---Proposed accused had already registered a case against the complainant party and SHO had stated that no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place---SHO, in such circumstances, was competent to invoke provisions of Rules 24.4 and 24.7 of Chapter XXIV of Police Rules, 1934 and S.157(b), Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition was allowed, SHO was directed to record statement of complainant and from statement so recorded if a cognizable offence was made out, then to record the same in terms of S.154, Cr.P.C. Dr. Inayatullah Khilji and 9 others v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (East) Karachi and 2 others 2007 PCr.LJ 909 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 54---Arrest of accused without warrant---Scope---"Reasonable suspicion"---Connotation---Word "reasonable suspicion" used in S.54, Cr.P.C., did not mean a mere vague surmise, but a bona fide belief on part of the police that an offence had been committed or was about to be committed---Such belief had to be founded on some definite averments tending to throw suspicion on the person arrested. ORDER RIAZAT ALI…
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