IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Cr. Misc. Application No. S- 859 of 2021

 

                                                                       

Applicant               :         Muhammad Mithal S/o Ahmed Lakho

through Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan, advocate 

 

Respondents         :         The State & others, through

No. 1 & 3                        Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl.P.G. 

         

           

                                

Date of hearing      :         30-12-2021

Date of order         :         30-12-2021

                                                                   =========

 

         

ORDER

 

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.-      The respondent No.2 herein filed Cr. Misc. Application No.4683 of 2021, under section 22-A & 22-B of Cr.P.C. (Re: Naveed Ali vs. SSP Naushehro Feroze & others) before the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Naushehro Feroze seeking directions to the S.H.O., P.S. Bhirya City to record his statement as per his verbatim and if any cognizable offence made out then may register F.I.R. against the proposed accused, who allegedly, on 25.04.2021, the applicant along with his PWs namely Zahid Ali Lakho and Naseer Ahmed Lakho were available in his Otaq when the proposed accused/applicant Muhammad Mithal came  and demanded 170 Wheat bags from him to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/- and paid Rs.50,000/- as advance while for remaining amount he issued a cheque amounting to Rs.800,000/- dated 25.06.2021 of NBP Branc, Naushehro Feroze which later on went dishonor on its presentation. The said application was heard and allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Naushehro Feroze vide order, dated 09.12.2021, directing the S.H.O., Bhirya City to record the statement of the respondent No.2, register the F.I.R. and further to proceed with the matter in accordance with law with directions to Investigation Officer not to arrest the accused. It is against that order, the instant Cr. Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant under section 561-A, Cr. P.C.

2.       Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the impugned order is against the law and principles of natural justice and equity as the same has been passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace without recording justifiable reasons; that the applicant filed F. C Suit against Aijaz Zahid and Naveed Lakho (respondent No.2) wherein he took stance that they have stolen cheques of the plaintiff/applicant and handed over  the same to other defendants who are misuding the cheques illegally and forcibly; however, applicant has not issued any cheque in favour respondent No.2 nor any such transaction as narrated in the application have taken place; that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has erred while passing the impugned order as the same was passed without proper verification of facts and applying his judicious mind.  

 

3.       On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General has fully supported the impugned order.

 

4.       There can be no cavil to the proposition that once the allegation with respect to the commission of a cognizable offence is communicated to police, the police is duty bound to register a case. In the case of Sana Ullah versus S.H.O, Police Station, Civil Line Gujrat and 3 others (PLD 2003 Lahore 228) while interpreting Section 154, Cr.P.C, it was held that words used in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C “every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence” pertains only to the information so supplied and do not pertain to actual commission of the cognizable offence and that information supplied should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of its truthfulness or otherwise and concerned police official has to satisfy himself only to the extent that the information is in respect of a cognizable offence. It was also held that at the time of first information report, accused persons named in the compliant have no right of hearing. It is, therefore, obvious that if there is an information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned is under statutory obligation, without hearing the accused person, to enter it in the prescribed register. Failure of the concerned police officer to register a complaint so made or his resorting to delaying tactics, amounts to failure to discharge statutory obligations, which attracts provisions of Section 22-A (6) (i), Cr.P.C.

5.       I am not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. The aggrieved person is well within his rights to approach the Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) (i), Cr. P.C, with a prayer for registration of the case, and if the Justice of Peace comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is apparent from the data available on the record, he can pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. As such, the Justice of Peace is saddled with the administrative duty to redress the grievances of the complainants aggrieved by refusal of police officer to register their reports. However, he is not authorized to assume the role of investigating agency or prosecution. Even minute examination of the case and fact findings upon the application and report of police is not included in the function of the justice of Peace. It may also be observed that every citizen has got a right to get his complaint registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with local police when complaint makes out a cognizable offence, and a safeguard against false complaint is provided under Section 182 P.P.C. whereby a person giving false information to an officer in-charge of a police station can be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 182 or Section 211 of the P.P.C., if such information is found to be false. Even otherwise, in the instant matter, the applicant has issued allegedly cheque of huge amount in favour of respondent No.2 which on its presentation went dishonor.

 

6.       For the foregoing facts and reasons, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order requiring any interference of this Court under its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Hence, this Crl. Misc. Application is dismissed accordingly, along with pending application.

 

                                                                            

                                                                                                JUDGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihsan.