IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDHB ENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Application No. S-164 of 2022

                                                                       

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

 

1. For orders on office objection at flag-A.

2. For hearing of M.A. No. 1362/2022 (Stay Application)

3. For hearing of main case.

===========

27.06.2022

 

Mr. Illahi Bux Jamali, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Fayyazuddin Rajpar, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, D.P.G. for the State.

 

 

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.-     The respondent No.4 herein filed Cr. Misc. Application No. 6386 of 2021, under section 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. (Re: Ayaz Ali  vs. The State, through D.P.G. Khairpur & others) before the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Khairpur seeking, inter alia, directions to the respondent No.3 (S.H.O., P.S. Setharja) to record his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. and lodge his F.I.R. in verbatim under relevant sections against the proposed accused who, on 18.12.2021, allegedly abused him and caused iron rod and lathie blows on his head and leg. It was case of the respondent No.4 that the respondent No.3 refused to lodge the F.I.R. The said Cr. Misc application was heard and allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II / Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Khairpur vide order, dated 04.02.2022, directing to respondent No.3 to record the statement of respondent No.4 and if from his statement and medical certificate a cognizable offence is made out, the same may be incorporated in book under section 154, Cr.P.C. It was further directed that if the statement of the applicant is found false then the respondent No.3 would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. against the applicant and the proposed accused shall not be arrested until and unless tangible evidence is brought on record. It is against said order, the applicant, who is one of three proposed accused, has maintained instant Cr. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr. P.C. 

2.         Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the impugned order being against the law, facts and equity is liable to be set aside; that, on 18.12.2021, the respondent No.4 got a police letter for treatment referring three injuries, but he appeared before Medical Officer of RHC, Mirwah on 20.12.2021 and his MLC reflected six injuries, which fact alone was sufficient to establish that all the injuries were self-suffered and the MLC issued by the Medical Officer was false forged and managed one; therefore, the applicant submitted applications to Secretary, Health Department, Government of Sindh and others officials on that the Director General, Health Services Sindh, Hyderabad, vide order dated 18.01.2022, constituted a Medical Board to determine the veracity of alleged MLC, but the respondent No.4 failed to appear before the said Board, which fact the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to consider; hence, the impugned order being unsustainable in law is liable to be set aside. 

 

3.         On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and D.P.G. have fully supported the impugned order.

 

4.         Heard, record perused.

 

5.         There can be no cavil to the proposition that once the allegation regarding 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.

 

6.         It may be observed that every citizen has a right to get his complaint registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with local police when he makes out a cognizable offence. Failure of the concerned police officer to register a complaint so made or his resorting to delaying tactics, amounts to failure to discharge statutory obligations, attracts provisions of Section 22-A (6) (i), Cr.P.C; therefore,

an aggrieved person is well within his rights to approach the Justice of Peace under said provisions of law with a prayer for registration of the F.I.R., 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.

 

7.         I am not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. Veracity of the alleged MLC shall be seen in investigation if the F.I.R. is recorded by the police. 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, P.P.C.

8.         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, along with listed application.

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                                                        JUDGE         

Faisal Mumtaz/PS