C.P.No.D-2630 of 2015

For orders on CMA-9119/2015

08.09.2015

Mr. Ali Gul Abbasi for petitioner.

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

Learned counsel for petitioner seeks urgency and submits that the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Sukkur, in Cr.Misc.A. No.866/2015 whereby, the application of the petitioner for registration of FIR against the proposed accused persons has been rejected, is illegal. Per learned counsel, since a cognizable offence was reported therefore, the learned Justice of Peace was required to issue directions to the concerned SHO to register the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to refer to the allegations, which, according to petitioner, constitute to a cognizable offence, in response to which, learned counsel has read out the contents of para 4 of application under Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.

From bare perusal of the contents of para 4 of such application, it appears that, prima facie no cognizable offence was reported as, the applicant did not file even affidavits of the witnesses in support of such application nor produced any material in support of such allegations. Such fact has been noted by the learned Justice of Peace and has also observed that admittedly there is civil dispute pending between the parties in respect of same subject land. Learned counsel could not refer to any material which may support the allegations, whereas, alternate remedy by way of filing direct complaint is also available to the petitioner. We may further observe that the Justice of Peace, otherwise, cannot issue directions for registration of FIR without applying his judicious mind to the allegations in a mechanical manner, whereas, only in appropriate cases involving cognizable offence, concerned SHO can be directed to record statement of complainant and if a cognizable offence made out, then to lodge FIR.

In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any error in the order passed by learned Justice of Peace, consequently, instant petition, being misconceived, is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the alternate remedy in accordance with law.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.