ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-86 of 2024

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on office objection.

2. For hearing of main case.

3. For hearing of M.A No. 1027/2024. (Stay Application)

16-01-2025

Mr. Akeel Ahmed Bhutto, advocate for applicant

Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar, advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Applicant Ghulam Sarwar has impugned an order dated 08.03.2024, passed by the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana acting in his capacity as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. In terms of the said order, an application filed by respondent No.3 under section 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C. seeking directions for the registration of an F.I.R, was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that no offence has occurred and that the application filed by respondent No.3 Rehmatullah was purely based on malafide.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Prosecutor General have supported the impugned order.

4. I have heard the counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and the learned Additional Prosecutor General. My observations and findings are as follows.

5. It is a given position that if any person has an information about an offence having been committed, he is entitled under Section 154, Cr.P.C to approach the police station of competent jurisdiction with the information he has. It is then up to the police officer to determine whether the information reveals an offence having been committed and if yes, whether it would be categorized as a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence. The Cr.P.C. and the Police Rules have ample guidance for S.H.O.s to proceed in all these scenarios. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the applicant argues that while the impugned order appears to say that an FIR should be registered only if a cognizable offence has been committed, such orders are usually misinterpreted by the police to mean that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has ordered a compulsory registration of an FIR. Learned Counsel is correct to this extent that experience has shown that police officers too indeed interpret such orders to mean directions passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for mandatory registration of an FIR. It is clarified that the order of 08.03.2024 apart from the fact that in itself it does not order a compulsory registration of FIR should not be interpreted to mean the same by the police. The applicant can approach the relevant police station with the information, after which the police shall act in accordance with the law.

6. Given the above, the respondent No.3 may approach the competent police station with the information that he has. The police shall act in accordance with law. It is clarified that this order should not be interpreted to mean that a mandatory direction to register an F.I.R, is being made. The police shall act in accordance with law

7. Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A*