IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDHB ENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Application No. S-23 of 2022

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

1. For orders on office objection at flag-A.

2. For hearing of main case.

24.06.2022

Mr. Manzoor Ali Chohan, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Imdad Ali Soomro, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

Mr. Imran Mubeen Khan, A.P.G. for the State.

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.- The applicant filed a Cr. Misc. Application bearing No.3321 of 2021, under section 22-A (6) (i) & B, Cr.P.C. (Re: Abdul Jabbar vs. Station House Officer, P.S. A-Section Sukkur & another) before the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur seeking directions to the respondent No.1 to record his statement in verbatim and register the F.I.R against the proposed accused, namely, Mst. Iqra w/o Muhammad Mehran, who allegedly issued a cheque, dated 10.11.2021, amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- of HBL, which was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient amount in her account. It is case of the applicant that the respondent No.1 refused to lodge the F.I.R for the alleged cognizable offence. The said Cr. Misc Application was heard and dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V^th / Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur vide order, dated 16.12.2021, by holding that the main ingredients of section 489-F, P.P.C. were missing as the alleged cheque was not issued towards repayment of the loan or fulfillment of any obligation; hence, the application filed by the applicant was without any substance. It is against that order, that the applicant has maintained instant Cr. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr. P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the Justice of Peace has passed the impugned order without considering documentary evidence on record; that the concerned bank also verified that the alleged cheque was issued by the proposed accused from her account; that the Justice of Peace has travelled beyond his jurisdiction by assuming the role of investigating agency and examining the case and making fact findings upon the application, which is not the function of the Justice of Peace; hence, impugned order being not sustainable in law is liable to be set aside with direction to S.H.O. concerned to record the statement of the applicant under section 154, Cr.P.C.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the proposed accused and A.P.G. have fully supported the impugned order. They; however, have conceded that the information so conveyed by the applicant discloses the commission of a cognizable offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.

4. Heard, record perused.

5. There can be no cavil to the proposition that once the allegation regarding 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.

6. It may be observed that every citizen has a right to get his complaint registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with local police when he makes out a cognizable offence. 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, attracts provisions of Section 22-A (6) (i), Cr.P.C; therefore, an aggrieved person is well within his rights to approach the Justice of Peace under said provisions of law with a prayer for registration of the F.I.R., 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.

7. So far the instant case is concerned, apparently, the findings of the Justice of Peace while refusing to redress the grievances of the petitioner, are erroneous for the reason that the information so conveyed by the applicant prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, as conceded by the learned counsel for the proposed accused and A.P.G. As a consequence, there was no option for the learned Justice of Peace, but to pass a direction to police authority concerned for the registration of the F.I.R.

8. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the Justice of Peace has committed serious error while passing impugned order, which is hereby set-aside by allowing instant Cr. Misc. Application. Consequently, the S.H.O. Police Station A-Section, Sukkur is directed to record the statement of the applicant under section 154 Cr.P.C. in his verbatim and proceed further in accordance with law. The proposed accused; however, shall not be arrested until and unless tangible evidence is brought on record.

Instant Cr. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Faisal Mumtaz/PS