C.P.No.D-4632 of 2015

1. For orders on CMA-13017/2015

2. For orders on CMA-13018/2015

3. For Katcha Peshi

15.12.2015

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Panhwar Advocate for petitioner.

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

Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur in Cr.Misc.A. No.1451/2015, whereby the application filed by the complainant under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against proposed accused persons, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a cognizable offence was reported, therefore, it was the duty of the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace to issue directions to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR and to proceed against the proposed accused persons in accordance with law.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It will be advantageous to reproduce relevant finding of the learned Justice of Peace, which reads as follows:

“Perusal of copy of FIR No.118/2015, submitted with the police report as well as record reveals that prior to this, the applicant had filed Miscellaneous Application No.1278/2015 showing the incident to have taken place on 02.11.2015 and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2015 in consequence whereof the applicant lodged above FIR against Ali Dur, Ghulam Murtaza, Irshad, Sadiq, Ali Gkul and Naseem in which Talib Hussain, Pirano and Manzoor shown to have sustained injuries and their medical certificates were also annexed with that application. Now, present applicant, concealing the above fact of filing earlier application, has filed instant application for seeking directions to the SHO, PS, Salehpat to register the FIR against the above named proposed accused with exaggeration names showing the incident to have taken place on 03.11.2105 in which Manzoor, Talib, Bashiran, Hawa, Razia, Shamshad and Arbeli shown to have sustained injuries. It appears that applicant has not come with clean hands and he only just want to register other FIR against above named proposed accused. The SHO in his report has also denied to have happening of the incident.

There is no cavil to this proposition that when mala fide of complainant was flouting on the record and his tricky design was visible then exercise of powers u/s 22-A Cr.P.C by issuance of directions for registration of case would be an exercise in aid of injustice which had neither been intention of legislature in enactment of such provision. Reliance is placed on a case reported 2012 YLR 1836. In another case reported 2012 P.Cr.L.J 288 wherein it has been held hat Justice of Peace in appropriate cases depending upon the circumstances therein can refuse to issue a direction to recording registration of FIR and dismiss the complaint.

In view of above discussion, the instant application is dismissed. However, the applicant may avail the alternate remedy of filing direct complaint, if he desires so.”

From perusal of finding recorded by learned Justice of Peace and the contents of application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by the complainant, it appears that material facts have been concealed as the incident, which took place on 02.11.2015 was earlier reported by the complainant to the Justice of Peace, on whose directions an FIR has already been registered, whereas, it appears that the petitioner wanted to register another FIR of the same incident by concealing facts. We may observe that Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace is required to apply his judicious mind to the fact of the incident alleged under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C and unless a cognizable offence is reported and there is some material connecting proposed accused persons with the alleged offence, no such directions can be issued for registration of FIR in a mechanical manner. We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace has exercised the lawful authority in accordance with law and it does not require any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant petition and dismiss the same in limine, along with listed applications, however, the petitioner is at liberty to seeks his remedy by filing proper application before appropriate forum.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.