ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Misc Appln No.S-251 of 2023

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

1.     For orders on office objection “A”.

2.     For hearing of main case.

3.     For hearing of MA No.3764 of 2023. S/A

26.02.2025

            ​Applicant (Ashok Kumbar) present in person.

            ​Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh

 

Khalid Hussain Shahani, J:- The applicant, Ashok Kumar, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking judicial intervention against the order dated 22-07-2023, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Larkana, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1288/2023, whereby his application under Section 22-A(6)(i) for the registration of an FIR was rejected.

2.        The applicant asserts that on 16.06.2023 at 09:00 AM, the proposed accused allegedly committed theft at his residence. He claims that accused Ali alias Kashif and Rafiq were apprehended by the Chowkidar and handed over to respondent No.1. However, he contends that the police released accused Rafiq after allegedly accepting a bribe. The applicant argues that the alleged incident constitutes a cognizable offence warranting immediate registration of an FIR. Upon being denied this relief by the SHO of Police Station Darri, the applicant sought judicial intervention under Section 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C. for directions to register an FIR. However, his application was dismissed, prompting the filing of the present petition.

3.        Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) mandates that the In-charge of a police station must record information regarding a cognizable offense in writing, either by himself or under his direction, and read it over to the informant. Such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, must be officially recorded in a register maintained as prescribed by the Provincial Government. The use of the term “shall”; in this provision underscores the obligatory nature of registering an FIR in cognizable offenses, without assessing its truthfulness at the initial stage.

4.        However, under section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C, the powers conferred upon the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are discretionary, as indicated by the use of the word “may”. This reflects the legislature’s intent to allow the Justice of Peace to exercise judicial prudence in determining whether directions for FIR registration should be issued, based on the merits of the information provided. The functions of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, outlined in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (6) of Section 22-A Cr.P.C, are designed to ensure expeditious justice but are neither unchecked nor limitless. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in various judgments, has held that an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace must exercise caution and diligence in such matters. It is imperative for them to carefully examine the nature of allegations and safeguard the rights of individuals against whom an FIR may be directed. The principle of fair play necessitates that the rival party is given an opportunity to be heard before any order is passed, preventing potential misuse of legal provisions. The primary objective of an FIR is to set the legal process into motion and present relevant material before a competent court for adjudication. It is not intended to serve as a tool to satisfy either party in a dispute. Consequently, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has the discretion to refuse directions for FIR registration, advising the complainant to pursue alternative legal remedies under Sections 156(3) and 190 Cr.P.C, or by filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, when allegations are directed against the police, there exists a greater risk of compromised investigations, making a private complaint a more suitable recourse in such situations.

5.        The Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, has explicitly noted that a report was requisitioned from the District Complaint and Redressal Cell, Larkana. The findings indicate that the applicant’s house has been demolished, rendering it uninhabitable, and that no incident of theft has been established. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide the specific date and time of the alleged occurrence and the incident remains unverified and uncorroborated by any witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in multiple precedents, has emphasized that where the police inquiry negates the occurrence of an alleged incident, compelling law enforcement to register an FIR would be an exercise in futility. Judicial discretion must be exercised prudently to prevent the abuse of legal provisions, and the registration of an FIR under such circumstances, absent substantive evidence, would serve no lawful purpose.

6.        Upon careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances presented by the applicant, it is evident that no cognizable offense has been established. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that it is not mandatory for courts to direct the police to register an FIR when the allegations appear to be mala fide or lack substantive grounds. Judicial prudence demands that before issuing such directives, the court must ensure that they are not granted in a routine or mechanical manner, as doing so could infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals against whom such orders are passed. In light of the applicant’s failure to provide sufficient legal grounds justifying interference with the impugned order, and in alignment with established jurisprudence, the present application stands dismissed for being devoid of merit in limine.

 

JUDGE

S.Ashfaq/-