IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

(i)        Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S-   83 of 2021.

Muhammad Akram.                                                             ……..…..…….Applicant.

Versus

SHO P.S Punhoon Bhatti

and others.                                                                             ………...….Respondents.

(ii)       Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S-   94 of 2021.

Talib Hussain.                                                                       ………....…….Applicant.

Versus

SHO P.S Punhoon Bhatti

and others.                                                                             ..…….....….Respondents.

            Mr. Zafar Ali Malghani, Advocate for applicants in both cases.

            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                    25.11.2022.

Date of order:                       25.11.2022.

ORDER

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-. Through these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, the applicants have assailed the order dated 30.3.2021  passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in the capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby an application filed by the respondent Mst. Sharma seeking directions to lodge her FIR against the proposed accused persons i.e. applicants and others was allowed. The applicant Talib Hussain through Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S- 94/2021 besides challenging aforesaid order of 30.3.2021 has also challenged Order dated  07.04.2021, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has directed SHO for complying with order date 30.3.2021.  

            2.         The facts of the case are that the respondent Mst. Sharma filed an application before learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad by invoking his authority as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C. Through the said application, she sought directions to the respondent/SHO to register a case/ FIR against the proposed accused in respect of an incident allegedly taken place on 06.2.2021, according to which proposed accused were responsible for trespassing in her house, abusing inmates of house, damaging house hold articles, causing kicks and fists blows, coupled with robbery of cash amount and cattle.

            3.         While pressing these applications, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned order is against the settled legal principle and contrary to the facts of the applicants’ case. According to him, the learned Ex-Officio/Justice of Peace has grossly erred in not appreciating the material placed before him, to the effect that the applicant is Incharge of Dhak at Dao Jahanpur and received ten cattle from SHO P.S Punhoon Bhatti and he released cattle pursuant to order of learned Civil Judge Garhi Khairo. Learned counsel further added submitted that impugned order is contrary to both law and facts and it is agaisnt principles settled for administration of criminal justice and it is passed by learned Ex-Officio/Justice of Peace by not recording justifiable reasons, hence the impugned order is not maintainable. Lastly, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside.

            4.         The learned D.P.G supports the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and submits that no infirmity or perversity is pointed out in the said order.

            5.         Perusal of the impugned Order reflects that, applicant has alleged that during enquiry she was not called and heard by learned SSP Jacobabad; that, she further alleged that one side enquiry has been conducted; that allegations leveled in this application are serious in nature and plea taken by respective parties could only be adjudged properly through investigation, hence SHO P.S Punhoon Bhatti is directed to record the statement of the applicant and then incorporate the same  in F.I.R book, if cognizable offences are disclosed by recorded statement.

            6.         It is well settled principle of law that under Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C the Ex-Officio/ Justice of Peace is supposed to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and it if did, then to direct the concerned SHO to record an F.I.R without going into the veracity of the information in question.

            7.         In view of the above settled position of law, it appears that learned Sessions Judge in the capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him through applying his judicial mind and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by him while passing the impugned order. In the existing position of affairs, the impugned Orders do not call for any interference by this Court; therefore, these criminal miscellaneous applications are hereby dismissed being devoid of any force in them.

                                                              Judge

Ansari