ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 82 of 2017.
For
hearing of main case
08-02-2019
Mr. Ali Gul
Abbasi Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Amanullah
G.Malik Advocate for private respondents.
Syed Sardar
Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the
State
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J; The applicant by way of instant Crl. Misc. Application under section 561-A Cr.PC, has impugned order dated 21.08.2015, passed by
learned IInd Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur,
whereby he has accepted the police report for disposal of FIR crime No.
189/2014 u/s 302, 337J, 342 PPC registered at police station Airport/Abad
Sukkur under “C” class.
2. The
facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal miscellaneous application
are that the applicant lodged an FIR with PS Abad/Airport Sukkur alleging
therein that the private respondents in furtherance of their common intention
committed death of his sister Mst. Sonari by administering some intoxicant substance to her.
On investigation police submitted a report for cancellation of FIR under ‘C’
class. On such report, learned trial Magistrate on 18.02.2015 directed for
reinvestigation of the case. In pursuant to such direction, reinvestigation of
the case was conducted by Inspector Ghulam Ali Jumani. On reinvestigation, it was concluded by inspector Ghulam Ali Jumani that accused Ghulam Murtaza alias Murtoo could be the real culprit of the incident, while
rest of the persons involved in the incident are innocent. After reinvestigation
learned trial Magistrate accepted the police report for disposal of the above
said FIR under “C” class by way of impugned order. The operative part whereof
is read as under;-
“in view of above
discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the I.O has rightly recommended
the cancellation of the FIR, I therefore, approve(d) the police report and
order cancellation of the FIR as “C” class due to deficient evidence. Accused Murtaza alias Murtoo son of Abdul
Jabbar Malik is in judicial custody. Issue writ for his release forthwith, if not required in any other
case”.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that learned trial Magistrate has passed the impugned order with
lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned
order with direction to learned trial Magistrate to take cognizance whereof.
4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for
the private respondents have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl. Misc. Application by supporting the impugned order.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. Before
touching the merits of the case, it is found quite appropriate first to discuss
the difference between role of investigating officer and that of learned “Magistrate” in relation to investigation and
outcome thereof. Every investigation is to be conducted with reference to Chapter-XIV
of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Rules. The vitality
of role of investigating officer cannot be denied because it is the very first
person, who per law, is authorized to dig out the truth which, too, without
any limitation including that of version of informant / complainant.
Without saying more in that respect, the authoritative view of Honourable Apex
Court is given in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi Vs. The State (PLD 2018 SC-595), whereby certain legal position(s)
are declared. Out of which, some being relevant, are
reproduced hereunder:-
(iv)
During the investigation conducted after the registration of an FIR the
investigating officer may record any number of versions of the same incident
brought to his notice by different persons which versions are to be recorded by
him under section 161 Cr.PC in the same case. No
separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version of the same incident brought
to the notice of the investigating officer during the investigation of the
case;
(v)
During the investigation the investigating officer is obliged to
investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the
versions of the incident brought to his notice and, as required by Rule
25.2(3) of the Police Rules 1934 “It is the duty of an investigating officer to
find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to
discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or
offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely
to any view of the facts for or against
any person.”
(vi)
…….
(vii)
Upon conclusion of the investigation the report to be submitted under
section 173 Cr.PC is to be based upon the actual
facts discovered during the investigation irrespective of the
version of the incident , advanced by the first informant
or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any
other person.
7. From
above, it is quite clear that an investigating officer is not bound to base his
conclusion on version of informant or defence but on ‘actual facts, discovered during course of
investigation’. Such conclusion shall be submitted in shape of
prescribed form, as required by Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At
this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the provision of Section 173 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as under;
"173 (1) Report of Police Officer. Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without
unnecessary delay, and, as soon as it is completed, the Officer Incharge of the police station shall through the public
prosecutor---.
(a) forward to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report,
in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government, setting forth the names of
the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the, persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and stating whether
the accused (if arrested) has been forwarded in custody or has been released on
his bond, and, if so, whether with or without sureties, and
(b) communicate,
in such manner as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government, the action
taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the
commission of the offence was first given.
(2) Where a superior
officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in
any cases in which the Provincial Government by general or special order so
directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of
the Magistrate, direct the Officer Incharge of the police
station to make further investigation.
(3) Whenever it appears
from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released
on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of
such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
8. The
bare perusal of the above section would show that it directs that on conclusion
of every investigation, a police report shall be forwarded to the
Magistrate having jurisdiction, so empowered to take cognizance thereon which
must include all details. It no-where describes as to how the Magistrate
shall deal with such report. It however empowers the Magistrate to agree or
disagree with the opinion/act of the Investigating Officer in releasing an
accused during investigation u/s 497 Cr.PC, which, too,
to extent of discharge of bonds. Since, this Chapter no-where
provides duties / powers of the Magistrate to deal with such forwarded
report, therefore, we had to jump to next Chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 190 thereof, being
relevant, is referred which reads as under;
“Section 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. All
Magistrates of the first class, or any other Magistrate specially empowered by
the Provincial Government on the recommendation of the High Court may
take cognizance of any offence;
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence.
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made
by any Police officer,
(c) upon information received from any person
other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion”.
9.
In above section, the
word ‘may’ has been used which always vests competence to agree or
disagree with the police report
u/s 173 Cr.PC. This has been the reason
for legally established principle of Criminal Administration of Justice that an
opinion of the investigating officer is never binding upon the
Magistrate dealing with report, forwarded
under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code.
10. In
case of Muhammad Akbar v. State (1972 SCMR 335), it has been observed by
the Honourable Court that;
"Even on the
first report alleged to have been submitted under section 173, Cr.PC, the Magistrate could, irrespective of the opinion of
the Investigating Officer to the contrary, take cognizance, if upon the
materials before him he found that a prima facie case was made out against the
accused persons. After all the police is not the final
arbiter of a complaint lodged with it. It is the Court that finally determine
upon the police report whether it should take cognizance or not in accordance
with the provisions of section 190(i)(b) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. This view finds support from a decision of this Court in
the case of Falak Sher v.
State (PLD 1967 SC-425). "
11.
Even under the recently
substituted sub-section (3) of section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code,
Magistrate who takes cognizance of any offence under any of the clauses of sub-section
(1) of that section is required to apply his mind in order to ascertain as to
whether the case is one which he is required to 'send' for trial to the Court
of Session or whether it is one which he can proceed to try himself. It
must always be kept in view that an act of taking cognizance has nothing to do
with guilt or innocence of the accused but it only shows that Magistrate
concerned has found the case worth trying, therefore, the Magistrate
should never examine the matter in deep
but only to make prima facie assessment of the facts about the commission
of offence or otherwise. Once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
he has to send the case to that Court.
12. It
would further be added here that taking cognizance shall not prejudice right of
accused but rests the burden upon the prosecution to prove its charge without
any harm to presumption of innocence of the accused involved in the offence.
Even otherwise, it is by now settled that cognizance is taken against offence
and not against the accused. Therefore, it can safely be concluded
that if tentative examination of available material shows prima facie commission
of a cognizable offence last justifies proceeding further with case then
a criminal case normally cannot be disposed of under ‘B’ or ‘C’
class on the basis of recommendation of the police.
13.
Reverting to the merits
of the present case, it is stated here as per applicant the private respondents
in furtherance of their common intention committed death of her sister Mst. Sanonari by administering
some intoxicant substance to her. Whatever was stated by the complainant and
his witnesses during course of investigation has been disbelieved by the
investigating officer without lawful justification apparently on the basis of medical
report. By doing so, the investigating officer of the case assumed the role of the
Court which was not permissible. In that situation, the learned trial
Magistrate ought not to have accepted the police report for cancellation of the
very FIR under “C” class. In these circumstances the impugned order could not
be sustained, it is set aside with direction to trial Magistrate to pass the
same afresh after providing chance of hearing to all the concerned.
14.
The instant Criminal
Miscellaneous Application, is disposed of accordingly.
Judge
ARBROHI