YLR 2009

2009 PLP 83 (YLR)

AURANGZEB KHAN — Applicant Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Revision Application No. S-21 of 2005, decided on 11th October, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 83 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J
Parties AURANGZEB KHAN — Applicant Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 83 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 83 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 83 (YLR) (AURANGZEB KHAN — Applicant Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • I have heard Mr. Aijaz Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant and the learned State counsel.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154

Justice of Peace on application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr. P. C, passed a detailed order directing S.H.O. concerned to lodge F.I.R. of applicant against proposed accused

S.H.O. violated such order and instead of recording complaint/F.I.R. of the applicant, he recorded his statement as well as statements of various other persons and thereafter, submitted his report before the Justice of Peace

Such conduct of the S.H.O. smacked of foul play and mala fide on his part as after passing of order by the Justice of Peace, the only course available to S.H.O. was to record the statement of the applicant/complainant under S.154, Cr.P.C. and proceed further with the investigation of the crime in accordance with law

Despite categorical assertion of applicant that S.H.O. was favouring the opposite party, Justice of Peace, instead of enforcing his earlier order, accepted/entertained application of S.H.O. of Police Station; and passed the order reviewing his earlier order and directing applicant to file direct complaint

Passing of such order by Justice of Peace was a patent illegality which was liable to be corrected in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court. Aijaz Shaikh for Applicant. Anwar H. Ansari for the State along with S.H.O. Makki Shah Police Station Hyderabad.

Judgment & Decree

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.

Learned State Counsel has placed on record statement in writing filed by the S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah mentioning therein that he has taken over charge of the said Police Station on 26-1-2005, but thereafter the petitioner has not approached him for lodging of any F.I.R. I have heard Mr. Aijaz Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant and the learned State counsel. Perusal of case record reveals that on the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.503 of 2004 the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has passed a detailed order dated 11-12-2004, directing the S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah for lodging of F.I.R. of the applicant against the proposed accused. It seems that the then S.H.O. daringly violated such order, and instead of recording the complaint/F.I. R of the applicant, he recorded his statement as well as statements of various other persons and thereafter, submitted his report before the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, .. Such conduct of the then S.H.O., smacks foul play and mala fide on his part as after passing of order, dated 11-12-2004 the only course available to him was to record the statement of the complainant/applicant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and proceed further with the investigation of the crime in accordance with law. It is strange that despite categorical assertion of the applicant that the said S.H.O. was favouring the opposite party, the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, instead of enforcing his earlier order, dated 11-12-2004, accepted/ entertained the application of S.H.O. of Police Station Makki Shah dated 22-12-2004 and passed the impugned order dated 1-2-2005 reviewing his earlier order and directing the applicant for filing of direct complaint. Passing of such order by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, seems to be patent illegality which is liable to be corrected in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed and disposed of in the terms that the applicant shall appear before the S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah for recording of his statement, whereafter further action shall follow strictly in accordance with law. Before parting with this order it may be observed that the conduct of the then S.H.O. Police Station Makki Shah, seems to be throughout tainted with mala fide. A copy of this order, therefore, be sent to District Police Officer, Hyderabad, for necessary disciplinary action against the said S.H.O. and submission of compliance report for the perusal of this Court within two months. H.B.T./A-140/K Application allowed.