2011 PLP 27 (YLR)

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--Through this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the petitioner Akhtar Ali Khan seeks the quashment of order dated 30-7-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I Bannu vide which he ordered registration of F.I.R against the petitioner.

2. Afsar Ali Khan respondent has submitted an application to the Additional Sessions Judge-I in his capacity as Justice of Peace Bannu under section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. for registration of case against the petitioner Akhtar Ali Khan S.H.O. of Police Station Haved, District Bannu. The averments in the application are that the petitioner deals in the business of supply of various items in Mir Ali and Bannu. In connection with his business on 20-6-2010 at about 1700 hours when he reached to Baka Khel, Bannu Miranshah road was closed because of Curfew, therefore, he proceeded to Bannu via Haved. When he reached near `Dreg Khuley' in the vicinity of Police Station Haved, he found respondent No. I along with police party present there who stopped him and took the loaded items. He told that it contained tea leaps and arrested him. During search, the S.H.O also snatched rupees 3,10,000 and, thereafter, he was released. In the next morning, he approached the S.H.O. and requested him to return the snatched amount but he refused on which he gave a written application to D.P.O. He was summoned by the D.P.O. on 28-6-2010 along with the S. H.O. but to no avail.

3. The petitioner contested the application and submitted written reply wherein the allegations were denied. However, the application was accepted vide order impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent filed application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. in order to blackmail, harass and defame the petitioner. According to the learned counsel there is no material available on record in support of the allegations levelled, against him and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the materials are to be seen and examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case and at this stage no materials are needed to be produced especially keeping in view the nature of case, i.e. case against the Police Officer He further argued that even if case is registered against the petitioner, there are ample chances in the shape of opinion of the Investigating Officer regarding his innocence if he produced evidence before him for his acquittal under sections 249-A Cr.P.C., 265-K Cr.P.C. etc.

6. In case of investigation, if the Investigating Officer finds that the evidence is deficient, the petitioner would be discharged. The paramount question to be decided in proceedings under section 22-A Cr.P.C. is as to whether a cognizable offence is committed. The Superior Courts have time and again issued directions for compliance of section 154 Cr.P.C. Non-registration of F.I.R on the part of police amounts to mis-use of powers and neglect of his duty. Under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. if a Justice of Peace finds that an incident has taken place, then he is required under the law to issue directions for registration of case.

7. Simple reading of the application submitted by the respondent against the petitioner to the Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. reveals that there are allegations of some facts which constitutes a cognizable offence. And when such facts are available disclosing existence of a cognizable offence, then police is bound to register the case under the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Reference may be given to the case of Salahuddin Khan S.H.O. v. Noor Janan and others reported in PLD 2008 Peshawar 53.

8. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order is well founded, well-reasons based on facts and needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. which is accordingly maintained and this petition having no substance is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./322/P Petition dismissed.