IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S- 269 of 2022.

Syed Tufail Hussain Naqvi.                                                …...…....…….Applicant.

Versus

The State and others.                                                           …....…...….Respondents.

            Mr. Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocate for applicant.

            Mr. Sajid Hussain Mahessar, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 (Anwar Ali), which is taken on record. 

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                    16.03.2023.

Date of order:                       16.03.2023.

ORDER

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J-. Through captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant Syed Tufail Hussain Naqvi has assailed the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar in capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby an application filed by the respondent No.2 (Anwar Ali) seeking directions to register his FIR against the proposed accused/ present applicant in respect of an incident allegedly taken place on 03.10.2022 with regard to illegally detention of brother of the complainant, namely, Liaquat Ali by the proposed accused, was allowed.

            A bare perusal of the material available on record, particularly the contents of proposed F.I.R filed with application under Section 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, and impugned order as well prima-facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence with regard to illegal confinement of brother of complainant by the proposed accused. The allegation also gets support from the report of the raid commissioner i.e. Judicial Magistrate, who conducted raid at police station and recovered the detainee pursuant to order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, in an application moved by complainant in terms of Section 491 Cr.P.C.

            It is settled principle of law that under Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C the Ex-Officio/ Justice of Peace is supposed to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if it did, then to direct the concerned SHO to record an F.I.R without going into the veracity of the information in question. Thus, keeping in view the above legal position, the Ex-Officio/Justice of Peace appears to have rightly passed the impugned order directing registration of F.I.R of respondent No.2.   However, the learned counsel for applicant has not been able to point any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

            In view of above, the instant criminal miscellaneous application being merit-less is hereby dismissed. 

                                                       Judge

Ansari