ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P. No.S-997 of 2014.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

15.5.2015.

Mr. Muhammad Zaman Zaur, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, DDPP.

Mr. Hemandas, Advocate for proposed accused No.1 to 3.

===

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO,J- By means of this petition, the petitioner has called into question the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Badin on an application filed by the applicant under section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R. against the proposed accused.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the mandate provided under section 154, Cr.P.C. whereby the duty officer of Police Station is bound to record the statement of a person, should it makes out an offence of cognizable nature, she has been denied her right to get her statement recorded.

3. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Zaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dismissing the application under section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C. is illegal and not sustainable under the law. According to him, the contents of the application sufficiently show that the proposed accused have committed an offence cognizable in nature, hence it is right of petitioner to get an F.I.R. registered against them. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the cases of MUMTAZ ALI v. SHO NAUSHAHRO FEROZ (2011 P.Cr.L.J.268), PERVEZ ALI v. SHO P.S. AHMED PUR (2012 YLR 2736), FAZAL MUHAMMAD v. SHO P.S. BABERLOI (2011 MLD 1232) and RAB NAWAZ v. SHO P.S. DAHARKI (2012 MLD 736).

4. Rebutting it, Mr. Hemandas, learned counsel for the proposed accused has argued that there is a civil dispute between the parties over a plot situated adjacent to the houses of proposed accused and in this regard, wife of proposed accused No.2 has filed a civil suit against the applicant. He has further argued that the applicant is trying to change the nature of civil dispute into a criminal one to put pressure upon the proposed accused to withdraw from the civil suit.

5. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, DDPP appearing on behalf of the State has also opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and while drawing attention to the medico legal certificate available at page No.35 and 37 of the file has argued that these certificates depict the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner and her daughter are minor in nature and besides being bailable are non-cognizable, for which no F.I.R. can be registered. He has further argued that no any witness has been cited in the application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner to have seen the incident.

6. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for respective parties and have gone through the material available on record with their assistance.

7. No doubt as per mandate under section 154, Cr.P.C, the duty officer of a Police Station is bound to record the statement of a person if it makes out an offence of a cognizable nature, and in such eventuality register the F.I.R. However, it would not mean that when the matter is subjudice before the Court, where plea for seeking direction to register an F.I.R. against certain persons is taken, the Court would act as a post office and after affixing its stamp would forward the said request to SHO P.S. concerned for registration of F.I.R. Such an approach would be contrary to legal principles and would make the judicial approach to the matters whereby a conscious mind is applied to resolve controversies between the opposing parties, merely a formality. In the present matter, on the day of incident an N.C. No. 7 was got registered by the petitioner at Police Station concerned wherein she has only alleged that she received some injuries at the hands of proposed accused and on the basis of which she was issued a letter for medical treatment. After their examination, the medical officer has opined that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and her daughter are Shujah-i-Khafifah under sections 337-A(i), 337-L(2), PPC. These injuries as per second schedule provided under Criminal Procedure Code are bailable and non-cognizable offence, for which no F.I.R. can be registered. However, it has been informed that no action in terms of section 155 Cr.P.C. has been taken so far by the police concerned. Since there is no eye witness cited by the petitioner regarding alleged robbery by the proposed accused, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to what prevented the petitioner from filing a direct complaint against the proposed accused which is equally efficacious and adequate remedy.

8. Under the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is found to be without merits and is dismissed accordingly. The applicant may avail remedy available to her under the law, if so advised.

JUDGE.