2013 PLP 581 (YLR)

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.

Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant Abdul Rahim has challenged the order dated 6-6-2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Ghotki whereby application filed by applicant under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. was dismissed. Brief facts leading to filing of instant application are that on 18-5-2012 at 9-30 a.m., applicant Abdul Rahim along with his sons Aijaz Rahim, Riaz Rahim, brother Muhammad Adam and nephew Muhammad Siddique after attending the court of learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki when they reached at Adilpur curve, proposed accused, namely, Bhuddo Khan Kolachi, S.H.O., Police Station Adilpur, Muhammad Nawaz Dharejo, WHC, Muhammad Afzal Somaro, H.C, and two unidentified police constables stopped the police mobile, got down from it and robbed cash of Rs.25,000 from the applicant, issued threats of dire consequences, illegally detained the applicant and his sons and demanded illegal gratification of Rs.75,

000. Issued threats that in case amount was not paid, the applicant shall be involved in false cases along with his family members. It is further alleged that nephew of applicant filed an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Judge and Raid Commissioner was appointed who con-ducted raid. It is stated that on 31-5-2012 applicant approached to the S.H.O., Police Station Adilpur for registration of F.I.R., but he refused to lodge it without any legal justification. Thereafter, above mentioned application was filed in the court of learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Ghotki, but the same was dismissed as stated above. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that S.H.O. refused to lodge F.I.R. against proposed accused in violation of section 154, Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant had no option but to file an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Ghotki but learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said application on technical grounds without assigning the sound reasons. Learned counsel further submits that no authority vested with an incharge of the police station to refuse to record the F.I.R. where information conveyed disclosed the commission of cognizable offence. In support of his contentions reliance is placed upon PLD 2007 SC

539. On the other hand, learned DDPP argued that alternate remedy is available to the applicant by filing direct complaint and this is not a fit case to issue directions to the S.H.O. for registration of F.I.R. He has also supported the impugned order and opposed the application. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant that no authority vested with an officer incharge of police station to hold inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which is conveyed to the S.H.O. for the purpose of recording of F.I.R., but in the instant case, an application submitted before learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace reveals that the S.H.O. had failed to perform his statutory duty and application under section 22-A has also been dismissed without assigning the sound reasons. There is no cavil to the proposition that if there is information relating to the commission of cognizable offence which falls under section 154, Cr.P.C., the police officer is under statutory obligation to enter into the prescribed register. This court under Article 199 of the Constitution and under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., is empowered to review or set aside the order passed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Rightly reliance has been placed upon a reported case as Muhammad Bashir v. S.H.O., Police Station, Okara Cantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539). For the aforesaid facts and reasons, order dated 6-6-2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace is set aside. S.H.O., Police Station Adilpur is directed to record F.I.R. of the applicant Abdul Rahim, if cognizable offence is made out. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of. MWA/A-79/K Application allowed.