MUHAMMAD SOHAIL vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PESCO, PESHAWAR Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD SOHAIL VS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PESCO, PESHAWAR Ss. 462-I & 462-O [as inserted through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VI of 2016)]---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 190---Theft of electricity---Quashing of the FIR sought---Distribution Company ('DISCO') as complainant---Contention of the petitioner/ accused was that the offence being non-cognizable the Court could only take cognizance of the matter on a complaint in terms of S. 462-O of the P.P.C., therefore, the registration of FIR be quashed---Validity---Word 'shall' used in S. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ('Cr.P.C.') manifested that the intention of legislature was that the said provision was mandatory and on receiving the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the police officer was required to register the FlR---Effect of insertion of S. 462-O, P.P.C. would be that the police after registration of the case and completion of investigation would not be competent to file a Challan before the Court in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C. but the Court would take cognizance of the matter on the complaint made by the authorized officer of the Distribution Company ('DISCO')not below Grade-17 by recording reasons for submission of complaint, therefore, it was evident from the said procedure that the Police Officer on receiving any complaint regarding the theft of electricity shall register a case, investigate the matter, however, for submission of the final report, instead of the mechanism provided under S. 173, Cr.P.C., he will place the same before the authorized officer of the DISCO, who after scrutinizing the investigation report shall submit a complaint before the competent Court of law---It was because S. 462-O, P.P.C., started with non-obstante clause which meant that the mechanism of taking cognizance before the Court would be through filing of a complaint and not by submitting of challan in terms of S. 173 read with S. 190, Cr.P.C.---However, for taking cognizance, Court required complaint/sanction of a Central or Provincial Government or authorized officer at the time of framing charge---Constitutional petition filed by the accused for quashing of the FIR was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SOHAIL vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PESCO, PESHAWAR Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 722 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ