IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Misc. Application No.S-255 of 2024
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objections.
2. For hearing of main case.
3. For hearing of M.A. No.4334/2024.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Jagirani, Advocate along with applicant.
Ms. ShewakRathore, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Mr. Abdul Rauf Korai, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Date of hearing :07.08.2024.
Date of order : 07.08.2024.
Date of Reasons : 12.08.2024
O R D E R
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.– Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the applicant/PROPOSED ACCUSED Maqsood Ahmed Lolaihas impugned the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge / Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby an application filed by respondent No.3 Mst. Shakeela,under Section 22‑A(6)(i), Cr.P.C (Cr. Misc. Application No.1127/2024) has been allowed with a direction to S.H.O. Police StationWaleed, Larkana,to record her statement and then take action in the matter in accordance with law under Section 154, Cr.P.C. against the proposed accused.
2. The anthology of facts is that respondent No.3 filed an application u/s 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C, alleging that on 07.06.2024, at 9.00 a.m., the proposed accused, including the applicant herein, individuals intruded into respondent No. 3's house while armed with rifles and pistols, and inflicted kicks and blows with the butt of the rifle on her mother and husband, Muhammad Yousuf. Additionally, the proposed accused, Roshan, delivered a severe blow to respondent No. 3 with the rifle butt. Following the incident, respondent No. 3 obtained a treatment letter from the police station and received medical treatment before approaching the police to request the lodgment of a First Information Report (F.I.R.), which was refused; hence, she filed the application in Court.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No.3 has not come before the Court with clean hands, as, prior to this, a murder case vide Crime No.90/2023 was lodged by the brother of the applicant at PS Waleed, Larkana against the husband and brother of the respondent No.3 and in order to save their skin in that murder case, she has filed this application based on false and unfounded allegations, asserting that no cognizable offence has been committed. The present applicant is employed with the Municipal Committee in Ratodero, while the proposed accused, Ghulam Parwar, serves as a Dispenser at B.H.U.Bado, Taluka GarhiYasin. Both individuals were on duty at the time and date of the alleged incident. Without meticulously examining the record, the learned Justice of Peace passed the impugned order. Respondent no 3 has an alternate efficacious remedy to file a direct complaint under section 200 CrPC.Hence, he requests that the impugned order is based on conjectures and is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr Abdul Rauf Korai's advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.3 and submits that respondent No.3 has sustained injuries at the hands of the proposed accused, which have been declared as cognizable. Therefore, SHO PS Waleed is duty-bound to register her F.I.R.
5. Learned D.P.G. also submits that the impugned order is based on persuasive reasons and does not call for interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
7. Under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it is not the duty of the Justice of Peace to meticulously examine or make determinations on the merits of the case. Instead, the Justice of Peace is required to ascertain whether the facts presented in the application establish a cognizable offence. If a cognizable offence is found, the Justice of Peace is authorized to direct that the complainant's statement be recorded pursuant to Section 154. The scope of the Justice of Peace's powers to direct that the complainant's statement be recorded under Section 154. These powers are confined to facilitating and supporting the administration of the criminal justice system. A detailed examination of the case and conducting a fact-finding investigation are not part of the functions of a Justice of Peace. Rather, the Justice of Peace is tasked with addressing the grievance of a complainant who has been aggrieved by a Police Officer's refusal to register their report. The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) classifies offences into two categories: cognizable and non-cognizable. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure for reporting a cognizable offence to a Station House Officer (S.H.O.), whereas Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. specifies the procedure for reporting a non-cognizable offence. The relevant provisions are reproduced as follows:-
Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Section 155 Cr.P.C.
Information in non-cognizable cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police-station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in a book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
Investigation into non-cognizable cases. (2) No police-officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate of first or second class having power to try such case or send the same for trial to the Court of Session.
(3) Any police-officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police-station may exercise in a cognizable case.
8. The Officer in Charge of a Police Station obtains information regarding the commission of an offence. They must initially determine whether the offence in question is classified as cognizable or non-cognizable. If the information relates to the cognizable offence, then such entry is to be kept in the 154 book. If there is a non-cognizable offence, then such entry is to be kept in 155 books of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The registration of an F.I.R. triggers the initiation of a police investigation in accordance with legal procedures.
9. Now reverting to the plea of the proposed accused, the respondent can file a direct complaint as per section 200 CrPC. If it were universally accepted that a party could opt to file a direct complaint rather than insisting on the lodgment of a First Information Report (F.I.R.), the function of recording an F.I.R. as prescribed under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) would become redundant and ineffectual. This would facilitate the police refusing to register an F.I.R. by advising the party to file a direct complaint. However, recourse to a direct complaint may only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, not as a general practice. It is the statutory duty of a police station officer to first record information regarding a cognizable offence, after which the investigation should proceed to collect evidence and other pertinent material necessary for prosecuting the offenders. In the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, OkaraCantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539), the honourable apex Court observed that no authority, including the Officer in Charge of a Police Station, has the power to refuse to record a First Information Report (F.I.R.) when the information received reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, such an authority cannot conduct an inquiry into the accuracy of the information before recording the F.I.R. Measures to prevent the lodging of false F.I.R.s should not involve refusing to record the F.I.R. but should focus on penalizing false informants under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), among other provisions, to deter the misuse of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
10. In the case at hand, respondent No. 3 sustained injuries inflicted by the applicant and the proposed accused named in the application filed under Section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Respondent No. 3 obtained a treatment letter and underwent a medical examination, after which the doctor issued a final medical certificate characterizing the injuries as Jurh Ghayr JaifahHashimah and Shajjah-i-Khafifah. The injury classified as Jurh Ghayr JaifahHashimah falls under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), which constitutes a cognizable offence, carrying a punishment of up to 5 years of imprisonment and is also subject to Daman (compensation).
11. The learned Justice of Peace has not committed any legal error in issuing the directions, which are otherwise founded on sound reasoning. Additionally, the interests of the proposed accused have been protected by the Justice of Peace, who has stipulated that if the case is found to be false during the investigation, proceedings under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) will be initiated against respondent No. 3. These are the reasons for my short order dated 07-08-2024.
12. In view of the above, an instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application being devoid of merit is dismissed along with the listed application.
JUDGE
Qazi Tahir PA/*