2012 PLP 736 (MLD)
RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION, DAHARKI and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 736 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION, DAHARKI and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 736 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 736 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 736 (MLD) (RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION, DAHARKI and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zulfiqar Ali Snagi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 561-A
Application to Justice of Peace for registration of F.I.R.
Scope
Grievance of applicant was that he approached Justice of Peace by moving application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. for seeking direction to the S.H.O. concerned to lodge the F.I.R., but same was declined with the direction to file direct complaint
Impugned order showed that applicant's application was rejected on two grounds; firstly that the S.H.O in his report stated that the nephews of the applicant were involved in a criminal offence for which F.I.R. was lodged and applicant in order to take revenge moved application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, and secondly on the basis of respondent's contention that the F.I.R. was being sought to be registered with mala fide intention to harass the police personnel from discharging their lawful duty
Whether the application was moved with mala fide intention or bona fide intention could only be proved after statement of the complainant was recorded by the police
Police report could not be considered as the sole criterion for passing the order by the Justice of Peace
Jurisdiction of Justice of Peace was to see as to why the police officials who were duty bound to record the statement under S. 154, Cr.P.C. have refused to fulfil their duty
Impugned order was set aside and S.H.O was directed to record the statement of the applicant and if any cognizable case was made out, to act in accordance with the law
Application was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 19-10-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace Ghotki. The allegations necessitating the lodging of F.I.R. are mentioned in paragraph 2 to 5 of the application moved under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Today SIP Khalid Hussain Memon S.H.O. Police Station Daharki, respondent No. 1 has filed his statement in which it is stated that Crime No. 82 of 2010 has been lodged against the applicant's nephew therefore, in order to take revenge application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. was filed. I have seen the impugned order which shows that the application was rejected on two grounds; one is that the S.H.O. in his report stated that the nephews of the petitioner are involved in Crime No.82 of 2010 and secondly on the arguments of learned D.P.P. who argued that the F.I.R. is being sought to be registered for mala fide intention to harass the police personnel(s) from discharging their lawful duty. On the basis of these arguments the application was dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to file Direct Complaint. Whether, the application was moved with mala fide intention or bona fide intention; this can only be proved after the statement of the complainant is recorded by the police and so far as the police report is concerned which can not be considered the sole criterian for passing the order by the Justice of Peace. The jurisdiction of the Justice of Peace is to see as to why the police officials who are duty bound to record the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. have refused to fulfill their duty. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent No.1 is directed to record the statement of the complainant and if any cognizable case is made out, he will act in accordance with the law. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of. M.W.A./R-1/K Petition allowed.