2019 PLP 951 (YLR)

Through instant petition, petitioners have prayed as under:-- That this Honourable Court may be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2016 in Cri. Misc. Application No.815 of 2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Banazeerabad/respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, it is contended that respondents filed application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C alleging therein that applicants (proposed accused) were beating two persons; when Dado Shaikh arrived there, they disclosed that they are not beating to Roshan Ali, infact he has fallen from the motorcycle therefore, they are rescuing him, whereas Dado Shaikh found that Roshan Ali was not alive.

3. Counsel for petitioner contends that this is case of accident, complainant party approached SSP Shaheed Benazeerabad through application, on his application enquiry was conducted, wherein statement of independent witness was recorded. On such statement it was surfaced that this is not a case of murder and Roshan Ali died due to road accident on motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for complainant contends that respondent No.3 narrated his story before the concerned police, but they refused to lodge the FIR and enquiry conducted by S.S.P without lodging FIR has no value and can't be acquitted with the investigation.

5. Heard and perused the available material.

6. The Code does not recognize a pre-inquiry nor is such pre-inquiry requirement of law or procedure to bring the law into motion. The Code provides mechanism for bringing law into motion on receipt of commission of cognizable offence and even non-cognizable offence. The Code does provide a mechanism to inquire into cause of death even on complaint of accidental matter (s) but none requires involvement of Senior Superintendent of Police or permission even. It is duty of the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station only. Thus, it is strange that how pre-trial conducted by the police officer when no FIR was registered. Needless to add that even if there is a failure on part of the officer-in-charge of police station which results in compelling aggrieved to approach superior authority (SSP) and such application/complaint is forwarded/marked to officer-in-charge police station. Such course would always be taken to act in accordance with law i.e. to bring the law into motion as it demands. Prima facie, it appears that act of the police officials is based on mala fide intention and ulterior motive least there is clear departure from mandatory obligation (s) hence, S.S.P Shaheed Banazeerabad shall conduct enquiry and those who failed to lodge the FIR despite a narration of commission of cognizable offence be dealt with in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that every Station House officer is required to record the statement of any informer, if cognizable offence is made out, he without any hesitation shall incorporate the same in the book provided under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Since, such direction was issued by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace which is strictly in accordance with law as it is duty of the agency to uncover the crime and examine the evidence for proper disposal of the complained offence, therefore, impugned order deserves no interference. Accordingly petition stands disposed of. JK/S-43/Sindh Order accordingly.