2025 PLP 165 (MLD)

Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.

Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant hascalled in question Order dated 17.08.2024, handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Shikarpur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1040/2024 (Re-Fazal Rehman v. S.S.P. Shikapur and others), wherein the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the same has been impugned before this court.

2. The facts in brief as per the application are that on 02.08.2024 at about 07:00 p.m., proposed accused Ayaz Ahmed Khero caused firearm injury to Abdul Hafeez on his left thigh, proposed accused Badaruddin Bhutto fired on the right thigh of Abdul Hafeez, thereafter they wanted to take him in injured condition, but on the intervention of local people, they left the Abdul Hafeez at the spot in injured condition; subsequently, after observing legal formalities, the injured was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment and the complainant after getting the treatment of injured appeared at the Police Station for registration of FIR. However the FIR was not registered despite the complainant's efforts, including approaching the S.S.P. office, which also yielded no response. Consequently, an application was filed under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court, which was allowed. Hence, the present applicants have impugned this order before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of the law and passed without considering the merits of the case; that on the day of the incident, A.S.I. Muhammad Mustaqeem Baloch lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.64/2024 at Police Station Khanpur against some dacoits, and they found Muhammad Hafeez in injured condition and shifted him to the hospital; that infact the injured had sustained injuries in an encounter with the dacoits; that on the day of incident proposed accused were not available at the scene of offence; that the relatives of the private respondent are criminals and there are many FIRs lodged against them, therefore, they want to drag the police officials to seek some relief. Hence, an instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application may be allowed, and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh, have supported the impugned order and submitted that it is a matter of investigation wherein an injured old person has sustained two injuries at the hands of the police, resulting amputation of his left leg; therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and the Medical Officer, who issued the Final Medico-legal Certificate and perused the material available on record with their assistance.

6. The contents of the application demonstrate that the private respondents, who are police officials, took away his uncle, Abdul Hafiz, from an Ice Stall in the presence of witnesses, namely, Abdul Hafeez, Manzoor and Muhammad Raheem on the charges that he is a facilitator of criminals. As a result, the accused discharged two firearm shots; one struck his left knee, while the second shot impacted his left thigh. The conclusive medical certificate issued by the Medical Legal Officer confirms the aforementioned injuries, categorizing them as Ghyr Jaifah Damiyah and Itlaf-i-Salahiyat-Udw, which constitute a cognizable offence.

7. The private respondents have not denied the injuries sustained by the injured, but their counsel submits that due to a police encounter, the injured passer bye has suffered injuries. The police have registered such FIR as Crime No. 64 of 2024, and the direction for the registration of a second FIR. is not permissible under the law, in the case of Sughra Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), in para No.27, the honourable apex court of Pakistan has observed that if there are various versions of the same incident, it is to be brought to the notice of the investigation officer by way of recording 161, Cr.P.C Statement. I have examined the FIR being Crime No.64 of 2024, in which the place of incident and time of occurrence are completely different from the time and place of the incident shown by the present applicant in the memo. of an application under section 22-a6(1), Cr.P.C. Therefore, it can be safely said that two separate incidents require separate registration of FIR to let the investigation come into motion.

8. Under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it is not the duty of the Justice of Peace to meticulously examine or make determinations on the merits of the case. Instead, the Justice of Peace is required to ascertain whether the facts presented in the application establish a cognizable offence. If a cognizable offence is found, the Justice of Peace is authorized to direct that the complainant's statement be recorded pursuant to Section

154. The scope of the Justice of Peace's powers to direct that the complainant's statement be recorded under Section

154. These powers are confined to facilitating and supporting the administration of the criminal justice system. A detailed examination of the case and conducting a fact-finding investigation are not part of the functions of a Justice of Peace. Rather, the Justice of Peace is tasked with addressing the grievance of a complainant who has been aggrieved by a Police Officer's refusal to register their report.

9. In the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539), the honourable apex Court observed that no authority, including the Officer in Charge of a Police Station, has the power to refuse to record a First Information Report (FIR) when the information received reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, such an authority cannot conduct an inquiry into the accuracy of the information before recording the FIR. Measures to prevent the lodging of false FIRs should not involve refusing to record the FIR but should focus on penalizing false informants under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), among other provisions, to deter the misuse of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

10. In the case of Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1123), The honourable apex court of Pakistan has observed that upon receiving information regarding the commission of an offence, the Officer In Charge of a Police Station is required to determine whether the disclosed offence qualifies as cognizable or non-cognizable. No legal provision exists, including Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., that grants the Officer In Charge the authority to conduct an inquiry to evaluate the truthfulness of the information before fulfilling the obligations imposed by these sections. The officer is mandated to document the information, irrespective of its veracity. The essential criterion for recording an FIR is that the information pertains to a cognizable offence. The process of filing a direct complaint does not equate to the procedure established under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which obligates the Officer In Charge to record the information and register an FIR if a cognizable offence is established.

11. In view of the above instant criminal misc. The application is dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the learned justice of the peace is hereby maintained. JK/B-12/Sindh Application dismissed.