IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

 

Cr. Misc. Application No.S-657 of 2021

 

 

Applicant:                                          Javed Ahmed Bhutt through Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Shaikh, Advocate.

Date of hearing:                                 08.10.2021

Date of decision:                                08.10.2021 

 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:              Through this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 21.09.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki, whereby an application under Section 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C, filed by the Applicant, was dismissed.

 

2.       Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, submits that from the facts as averred in the application under Section 22-A (6)(i) Cr.P.C, a case for cognizance is made out as the offence is heinous in nature; that learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace has not applied his judicial mind while pronouncing the impugned order; besides did not discuss the merits of the case. He further submits that SHO is duty bound to register the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C and there is no any provision under the law for its refusal.

3.       I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and carefully perused the crucial contents of the impugned order. 

4.       From the perusal of impugned order, it reflects that learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace, after calling reports and record from the concerned police, has passed a detailed order and reasons for rejecting his application are mentioned in paragraph-5 of the impugned order, which reads as under:-

“From birds’ eye view of the available record, it has come on the surface that deceased Bilawal was working as loader in Home Textile Mills, Karachi and as per police report from 09.09.2021 to 12.09.2021, he was available on duty at Karachi, hence the alleged allegation of abduction of the deceased from Ghotki on 09.09.2021, does not appear to be tenable. The police report further indicates that deceased Bilawal had died his natural death at Karachi on 13.09.2021 and his dead body was shifted from Karachi towards Ghotki through Ambulance of Edhi Welfare Center, Karachi. Such record relating to the Ambulance and attendance sheet of the Mill Staff is placed on record. More so, no medical evidence is placed on record to suggest the alleged un-natural death of the deceased. The DSP Complaint Redressal Center, Ghotki and SHO P.S. “A” Section Ghotki, in their reports had negated the version of applicant and mentioned that no incident as alleged had occurred at all. In such situation, mere words of the applicant are not sufficient to direct the respondent No.1, SHO P.S. “A” Section Ghotki, to record the statement of applicant”.  

 

5.       As regard to the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that learned Justice of Peace cannot discuss the material produced before him and straightaway pass the order for registration of FIR has no force in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Younas Abbas and others vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581) wherein learned Apex Court has held as under:-

“The past experience of around 14 years (since the insertion of these provisions into the Code of Criminal Procedure) would unmistakably reveal that these provisions especially Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though beneficial and advantageous to the public at large, yet in myriad cases, it has been misused and abused.

Once a false criminal case is registered an individual, it becomes exceedingly difficult for him/her to get rid of it. The time and money which is spend on acquiring a clean chit by way of cancellation of the case or acquittal is not hard to fathom. There is no denying the fact that at times false and frivolous cases are got registered just to humble and harass the opposite party. In such a milieu, powers given to an ex-officio Justice of Peace under subsection (6) of Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue appropriate directions on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person for registration of a criminal case (Clause-i) and for transfer of investigation from one police officer to another (Clause-ii) though efficacious and expeditious besides being at the doorstep, but at the same time, these provisions should not be unbridled or open-ended. These provisions must be defined, structured and its contour delineated to obviate misuse by influential and unscrupulous elements.”    

6.       Learned Counsel for the Applicant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which, in my view, is well-reasoned and does not require any interference by this Court. Resultantly, this application is dismissed in limine; however, applicant is left at liberty to avail remedy in shape of direct complaint, if so advised. 

 

 

JUDGE

Faisal Mumtaz/PS