ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-3089 of 2013

   Date                      Order with signature of Judge

For katcha peshi

25.09.2013

Mr.Ali Asghar Buriro, advocate for petitioner

Mr.Muhammad Waseem Sammo, AAG

Mr.Khadim Hussain, DPG

ADSP Aleemullah Farooqui for SSP Thatta and SHO Abdul Majeed Brohi of PS Mirpur Sarkro are present

………

Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.07.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Thatta in Cr. Petition No.447/2013. In the impugned order, learned Justice of Peace has incorporated detailed facts of the case for which the complainant approached for the registration of F.I.R., which was denied. In the impugned order, the Learned Justice of Peace though opined that the matter requires enquiry but he suggested to the complainant that private complaint is better and appropriate remedy to be availed. It is further stated in the order that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not bound to issue directions in all cases and before issuing such directions, he has to look into the matter that which remedy under the circumstances would be proper and appropriate. In our view, this finding has displaced the entire purpose and scope of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. We are of the firm view that this remedy is only availed by an aggrieved person when police official refuses to record his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. It is not a normal and routine remedy which is to be availed in each and every case but it only applies in peculiar circumstances on case to case basis. Function of Justice of Peace is not to give any finding or to touch the merits of the case nor he has any such jurisdiction to decide which remedy is more appropriate for the complainant as according to law, this is the right of an aggrieved person to avail appropriate remedy provided under the law. At best, the Justice of Peace can only direct concerned SHO to record the statement of complainant under section 154 Cr.P.C., and in case any cognizable offence is made out from the statement, further action including registration of FIR may be set into motion. The learned AAG and DPG both agreed that let statement of the petitioner be recorded first by the SHO and the further course of action may be taken accordingly.

As a result of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. SHO of PS Mirpur Sakro, Thatta, respondent NO.3 present in court is directed to record the statement of  complainant and if any cognizable offence is made out, he will act further in accordance with law. Petitioner is also directed to appear for recording his statement before respondent NO.3 within one week without fail.

Judge

                                                        Judge