IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDHBENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Application No. S- 342 of 2021

 

                                                                       

Applicant               :         Rafique Ahmed s/o Shuja Muhammad

through Mr. Shamsuddin Rajper,advocate 

 

Respondents         :         The State & others, through

No. 1 to 3                        Mr. Talib Hussain Siyal, A.P.G.

         

Respondent No.4   :         Ghulam Nabi s/o Ali Nawaz Veesar,

through Mr. Abdul Sattar Brohi, advocate     

                                 =========

Date of hearing      :         13-08-2021

Date of order         :         13-08-2021

                                                                   =========

         

ORDER

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.-   The respondent No.4 herein filed Cr. Misc. Application No. 2269 of 2021, under section 22-A & 22-B of Cr.P.C. (Re: Ghulam Nabi vs. The State & 2 others) before the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Khairpurseeking directions to the S.H.O., P.S. Mirwahto 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 30.03.2021, forcibly took the grain bags of respondent No.4 and caused hatchet blow to his paternal grandson, namely, Mazhar Ali at the top of his left finger. It was the case of the respondent No.4 that the S.H.O. concerned refused to lodge the F.I.R. The said application was heard and allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah vide order, dated 27.05.2021, directing the S.H.O., Mirwah to record the statement of the respondent No.4under section 154, Cr.P.C. and lodge the F.I.R. if from the statement of said respondent cognizable offence is made out. 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 on the same day applicant party got registered an F.I.R. bearing No. 78 of 2021 under section 506 (2), 337-A (i), 147 and 148, P.P.C. against the respondent No.4 and others; therefore, in order to counter that F.I.R. the respondents No.4 filed above mentioned Cr. Misc. Application; 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 counsel for the respondent No.4 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 madeor 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.

 

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, alongwith pending application.

 

7.       Above are the reasons of my short order dated 13.08.2021.

 

                                                                            

                                                                                                JUDGE