C.P.No.D-2820  of  2015

 

 

1.    For orders on CMA-7929/2015

2.    For Katcha Peshi

 

 

02.11.2015

 

Petitioner and his counsel called absent, no intimation received.

                                    .................

           

 

            Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Mirpur Mathelo, in Cr.Misc.A. No.1417/2015 whereby the application filed under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C, by the applicant for registration of FIR against proposed accused persons has been dismissed.

 

            From perusal of impugned order it appears that the learned Justice of Peace after examining the facts and the case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, has come to conclusion that the said application is devoid of merits hence not sustainable. It has been further directed that the applicant may approach the concerned police station for recording his statement and in case the concerned SHO declines to register the case, he may seek remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of law.

 

            Prima facie, we are of the opinion that Justice of Peace is authorized under law to examine the allegations contained in the application filed by the complainant under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C, conduct summary enquiry, call report from concerned SHO and if a cognizable offence is made out, to direct the concerned SHO to record the statement of the complainant and in case a cognizable offence, to lodge FIR and to proceed in accordance with law. Whereas, in case if the Justice of Peace is of the opinion that no cognizable offence is made out from the allegations made by the complainant in the application and the material obtained by the learned Justice of Peace including the enquiry from the concerned SHO etc. the request of the applicant can be declined. Complainant still has a remedy to file direct complaint before the same Magistrate on the same set of allegations under Section 200 Cr.P.C, however, in the instant case it appears that the applicant has not availed such remedy and filed instant petition and after filing instant petition, the petitioner has not remained vigilant to proceed with the matter as no one has shown appearance on behalf of the petitioner and no intimation received. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, along with listed application.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   JUDGE

 

 

                                                JUDGE

 

N.M.