IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDHBENCH
AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc.
Application No. S- 342 of 2021
Applicant : Rafique Ahmed s/o Shuja Muhammad
through Mr. Shamsuddin Rajper,advocate
Respondents : The State & others, through
No. 1 to 3 Mr.
Talib Hussain Siyal, A.P.G.
Respondent No.4 : Ghulam Nabi s/o Ali Nawaz Veesar,
through
Mr. Abdul Sattar Brohi, advocate
=========
Date of hearing : 13-08-2021
Date of order : 13-08-2021
=========
ORDER
ZAFAR AHMED
RAJPUT, J.- The respondent No.4 herein filed Cr. Misc.
Application No. 2269 of 2021, under section 22-A & 22-B of Cr.P.C. (Re: Ghulam Nabi vs. The State &
2 others) before
the learned Sessions
Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Khairpurseeking directions to the S.H.O.,
P.S. Mirwahto record his statement as per his verbatim and if any cognizable
offence made out then may register F.I.R. against the proposed accused, who
allegedly,on 30.03.2021, forcibly took the grain bags of respondent No.4 and
caused hatchet blow to his paternal grandson, namely, Mazhar Ali at the top of
his left finger. It was the case of the respondent No.4 that the S.H.O.
concerned refused to lodge the F.I.R. The said application was heard and
allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah vide order, dated 27.05.2021,
directing the S.H.O., Mirwah to record the statement of the respondent No.4under
section 154, Cr.P.C. and lodge the F.I.R. if from the statement of said
respondent cognizable offence is made out. It is against that order, the instant
Cr. Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant under section 561-A, Cr.
P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has
mainly contended that the impugned order is against the law and principles of
natural justice and equity as the same has been passed by the Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace without recording justifiable reasons; that on the same day
applicant party got registered an F.I.R. bearing No. 78 of 2021 under section
506 (2), 337-A (i), 147 and 148, P.P.C. against the respondent No.4 and others;
therefore, in order to counter that F.I.R. the respondents No.4 filed above
mentioned Cr. Misc. Application; that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has erred
while passing the impugned order as the same was passed without proper
verification of facts and applying his judicious mind.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent No.4 has fully supported the impugned order.
4. There can be no cavil to the
proposition that once the allegation with respect to the commission of a
cognizable offence is communicated to police, the police is duty bound to
register a case.In the case of Sana Ullah versus S.H.O, Police Station,
Civil Line Gujrat and 3 others(PLD 2003 Lahore 228) while
interpreting Section 154, Cr.P.C, it was held that words used in Section 154 of
the Cr.P.C “every information relating to commission of a cognizable
offence” pertains only to the information so supplied and do not pertain to
actual commission of the cognizable offence and that information supplied
should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of
its truthfulness or otherwise and concerned police official has to satisfy
himself only to the extent that the information is in respect of a cognizable
offence. It was also held that at the time of first information report, accused
persons named in the compliant have no right of hearing. It is, therefore,
obvious that if there is an information regarding commission of a cognizable
offence, the police officer concerned is under statutory obligation, without
hearing the accused person, to enter it in the prescribed register. Failure of
the concerned police officer to register a complaint so madeor his resorting to
delaying tactics, amounts to failure to discharge statutory obligations, which
attracts provisions of Section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C.
5. I am not impressed with the arguments
of learned counsel for the applicant. The aggrieved person is well within his
rights to approach the Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) (i), Cr. P.C,
with a prayer for registration of the case, and if the Justice of Peace comes
to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is apparent from the data available
on the record, he can pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. As such, the
Justice of Peace is saddled with the administrative duty to redress the
grievances of the complainants aggrieved by refusal of police officer to
register their reports. However, he is not authorized to assume the role of
investigating agency or prosecution. Even minute examination of the case and
fact findings upon the application and report of police is not included in the
function of the justice of Peace. It may also be observed that every citizen
has got a right to get his complaint registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with
local police when complaint makes out a cognizable offence, and a safeguard
against false complaint is provided under Section 182 P.P.C. whereby a person
giving false information to an officer in-charge of a police station can be
prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 182 or Section 211 of the
P.P.C., if such information is found to be false.
6. For the
foregoing facts and reasons, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order requiring any interference of this Court under its inherent
powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Hence, this Crl. Misc. Application is
dismissed accordingly, alongwith pending application.
7. Above are
the reasons of my short order dated 13.08.2021.
JUDGE