IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc.
Application No.S-657 of 2021
Applicant: Javed Ahmed Bhutt through Mr. Abdul
Mujeeb Shaikh, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 08.10.2021
Date of decision: 08.10.2021
O
R D E R
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, the
applicant has impugned the order dated 21.09.2021, passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki, whereby an
application under Section 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C, filed by
the Applicant, was dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, submits
that from the facts as averred in the application under Section 22-A (6)(i) Cr.P.C, a case for cognizance is made out as the
offence is heinous in nature; that learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace has not
applied his judicial mind while pronouncing the impugned order; besides did not
discuss the merits of the case. He further submits that SHO is duty bound to
register the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C and there is no any provision under
the law for its refusal.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and
carefully perused the crucial contents of the impugned order.
4. From the perusal of impugned order, it reflects that learned
ex-Officio Justice of Peace, after calling reports and record from the
concerned police, has passed a detailed order and reasons for rejecting his
application are mentioned in paragraph-5 of the impugned order, which reads as
under:-
“From birds’ eye view of the available record, it has come on the
surface that deceased Bilawal was working as loader
in Home Textile Mills, Karachi and as per police report from 09.09.2021 to
12.09.2021, he was available on duty at Karachi, hence the alleged allegation
of abduction of the deceased from Ghotki on
09.09.2021, does not appear to be tenable. The police report further indicates
that deceased Bilawal had died his natural death at
Karachi on 13.09.2021 and his dead body was shifted from Karachi towards Ghotki through Ambulance of Edhi
Welfare Center, Karachi. Such record relating to the Ambulance and attendance
sheet of the Mill Staff is placed on record. More so, no medical evidence is
placed on record to suggest the alleged un-natural death of the deceased. The
DSP Complaint Redressal Center, Ghotki
and SHO P.S. “A” Section Ghotki, in their reports had
negated the version of applicant and mentioned that no incident as alleged had
occurred at all. In such situation, mere words of the applicant are not
sufficient to direct the respondent No.1, SHO P.S. “A” Section Ghotki, to record the statement of applicant”.
5. As regard to the contention of learned Counsel for the
Applicant that learned Justice of Peace cannot discuss the material produced
before him and straightaway pass the order for registration of FIR has no force
in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Younas Abbas and others vs. Additional Sessions
Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581)
wherein learned Apex Court has held as under:-
“The past experience of around 14 years (since the insertion of these
provisions into the Code of Criminal Procedure) would unmistakably reveal that
these provisions especially Section 22-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, though beneficial and advantageous to the public at
large, yet in myriad cases, it has been misused and abused.
Once
a false criminal case is registered an individual, it becomes exceedingly
difficult for him/her to get rid of it. The time and money which is spend on
acquiring a clean chit by way of cancellation of the case or acquittal is not
hard to fathom. There is no denying the fact that at times false and frivolous
cases are got registered just to humble and harass
the opposite party. In such a milieu, powers given to an ex-officio Justice of
Peace under subsection (6) of Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to
issue appropriate directions on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person for
registration of a criminal case (Clause-i) and for transfer of investigation
from one police officer to another (Clause-ii) though efficacious and
expeditious besides being at the doorstep, but at the same time, these
provisions should not be unbridled or open-ended. These provisions must be
defined, structured and its contour delineated to obviate misuse by influential
and unscrupulous elements.”
6. Learned Counsel for the
Applicant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order, which, in my view, is well-reasoned and does not require any interference
by this Court. Resultantly, this application is dismissed in limine; however,
applicant is left at liberty to avail remedy in shape of direct complaint, if
so advised.
JUDGE
Faisal Mumtaz/PS