ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Misc Appln No. S-28 of 2024
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on office objection “A”.
2. For hearing of main case.
--------
17.02.2025
Mr. Amanullah Luhur, advocate for the applicant
--------------
Khalid Hussain Shahani, J.- The applicant, Darhoo Ali, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking judicial intervention against the order dated 05.01.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V/Justice of Peace, Larkana, in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2297/2023, U/s 22-A & B Cr.P.C, whereby the court has dismissed the application.
2. It is claim of applicant that on 17.11.2023, he along with house inmates was available at his home, at about 06-00 a.m. proposed accused being police officials trespassed into his house, allegedly broke house hold articles, took away buffalo and his son; besides, used abusive language, demanded illegal bribe for release of his son and buffalo, whereby he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- however, his son was implicated in a case bearing Crime NO.29/2023, offence u/s 401 PPC of P.S Dhamrah. The applicant approached to P.S for registration of FIR, but to no avail, hence finding no alternate remedy approached to Justice of Peace for seeking directions to SHO concerned for registration of FIR, however, his payer was declined.
3. Heard and perused the material.
4. Section 154 Cr.P.C authorizes In-charge police station that when information regarding cognizable offence is furnished to him, he shall reduce into 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 shall be sent by person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. From bare reading of such provision, it manifests that word “shall” has been used, making obligatory for an in-charge of police station to register FIR in a cognizable offence, without going into its veracity, either it is true or false. However, under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C, the powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are provided by using word “may”, which manifests that intention of legislature is that the Justice of Peace has been left with discretion either to issue directions for registration of FIR or otherwise, looking to the facts of the information so provided. The functions of Ex. Officio Justice of Peace are further described under clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of subsection (6) of 22-A Cr.P.C, though efficacious and expeditious, are neither unbridled nor open ended. In exercise of such powers, an Ex. Officio Justice of Peace is supposed to act dynamically after going through the nature of the allegations, in order to safeguard the rights of the individual(s), against whom such order is to be passed and in doing so firstly satisfy himself, whether the material so placed before him was appropriate for passing such directions for the reason that under the law the protection is extended to every individual in order to maintain the balance in society. Therefore, before passing any order, the rival party is put on notice against whom the FIR is asked for, so that before exercising such powers to obviate misuse, influence and unscrupulous elements. The sole purpose of the FIR is to put the law enforcing agencies into motion to place all such material before the court of competent jurisdiction and not to satisfy either party in the case in order to arrive at proper conclusion for dispensation of justice. Therefore, Ex. Officio Justice of Peace may refuse to issue such directions for registration of the criminal case, reminding the complainant to seek alternative remedies provided under Section 156(3) and 190 Cr.P.C as well as private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. If such directions are sought against the police, who has subsequently to investigate the case, there are less chances of fair investigation, therefore, the better course for the complainant would be to file private complaint.
5. In the instant case, it is alleged that the proposed accused being police officials trespassed into the house of complainant, took away buffalo, some house articles and the son of the complainant, whereby demanded bribe for release of his son and buffalo, out of which some amount was paid, but instead of that the son of complainant was implicated in the case referred herein above. As against, the defense plea is that the son of applicant was involved in criminal activities, whereby he was booked in the above case and the applicant in order to save his skin has managed a false story. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the applicant has approached to the Ex. Officio Justice of Peace and subsequently invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court for according directions to the police for lodging of FIR, but no purpose of him will be served if such directions are even otherwise accorded for the obvious reason that again the investigation lies with the police of same police station. Under such circumstances, it will be appropriate that the applicant may seek alternate remedy by filing private complaint against the proposed accused being police officials.
6. Given such circumstances, no illegality has been found to interfere with the order passed by the Ex. Officio Justice of Peace. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with the directions to the complainant to seek alternate remedy by filing private complaint, if so desires.
JUDGE