2013 PLP 885 (MLD)

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.

Applicant Allah Bakhsh has assailed the order dated 6th October, 2012, whereby application under section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C. was declined by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki.

2. Relevant facts of the case are that the applicant alleged that proposed accused intruded in his house with intention to kill her sister on the allegation of KARAP; attempted to abduct her; caused aerial firing and issued threats of dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the applicant approached before Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki; report was called from the S.H.O., but his application was declined on the ground that S.H.O. Mirpur Mathelo in his report, has stated "that no such incident has taken place and that the applicant has pleaded false facts to get false F.I.R. registered against the proposed accused". He added that police report is not binding hence dismissal of application of the applicant, while referring to report of S.H.O. is illegal, therefore impugned order is illegal.

4. Conversely learned A.P.-G. appearing for the State contends that the impugned order is according to law; applicant and proposed accused are related inter se and apparently there is matrimonial dispute between parties.

5. Since it is a matter of record that the applicant has tried to record his statement for registration of case against the proposed accused, while, alleging that accused persons attempted to abduct his sister with intention to kill on KARAP pretext and caused aerial firing but his application was declined by the Justice of Peace on the ground that the "S.H.O. has opined that no offence has been committed". It will be suffice to say that such course adopted by Justice of Peace is against the norms of settled principles. It is pertinent to mention here that provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. leaves no discretion with the officer incharge of a police station to avoid lodgment of F.I.R., if there is narration of facts of commission of cognizable offence, hence recording of statement is legally created right of every informant. The Officer Incharge of a police station has no right to undertake any pre-inquiry or pre-investigation but the course of investigation starts only after lodgment of the F.I.R. It is only the investigation which legally allows Police Officer to opine about truthfulness or otherwise of the offence, reported and even provides legal remedies against false informant(s). Thus, it is quite obvious that S.H.O. or officer in charge of a police station is not legally competent to decide the fate of information without resorting to the prescribed procedure because things are to be done in the particular manner and not otherwise. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can legally examine the contents of the application while passing an order under section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C. but should not decline a legitimate right merely on words of S.H.O. or officer in charge of a police station that "no offence has taken place" else the purpose of mandatory provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. and that of insertion of section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C. shall stand frustrated. Accordingly, I find the impugned order as not maintainable.

6. Consequently, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 6-10-2012 is set aside. The concerned S.H.O. is hereby directed to record the statement of the applicant and if such statement reflects that ingredients of cognizable offense are evident, register the F.I.R. against the proposed accused. MWA/A-164/K Application allowed.