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.