2024 PLP 1780 (MLD)
Mst. Safia Bibi — Petitioner Versus Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ASJ, Narowal and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1780 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. Safia Bibi — Petitioner Versus Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ASJ, Narowal and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (d) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ), (b) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1780 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (d) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ), (b) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1780 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1780 (MLD) (Mst. Safia Bibi — Petitioner Versus Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ASJ, Narowal and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahsan Rasool Chattha, Assistant Advocate General with Wajid SI for the State.
- Syed Tasawer Hussain Bukhari for Respondent No. 4.
- 3. As per brief facts of the present case, Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), moved an application before the District Police Officer, Narowal against Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) and others with the allegation that her (respondent No.4's) mother lodged FIR No.970/2022, offence under section 429 P.P.C., at Police Station Saddar Narowal against the petitioner and others with the allegation that they had administered poison to her dog and due to the above-mentioned grudge on 30.12.2022, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent No.4 and while trespassing into her house caused injuries on her body. I have noted that FIR No.970/2022, was lodged by Mst. Naziran Bibi (mother of Mst. Shamim Bibi respondent No.4), regarding the occurrence, which took place on 27.11.2022, at 5.00 p.m, during which her dog was statedly administered poison by the husband of Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) namely Muhammad Akram and others. Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), moved an application for registration of FIR regarding the occurrence which took place on a date, which has not been mentioned in the said application. However, the above-referred application for registration of FIR was moved by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), before the District Police Officer, Narowal on 07.01.2023 however, her medico legal examination was conducted on 30.12.2022 at 8.20 p.m. In the medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), the concerned Medical Officer has mentioned the duration of injures within five hours, which means that the occurrence alleged by respondent No.4, took place on 30.12.2022 around 3.00/4.00 p.m, whereas the earlier FIR No.970/2022, was lodged regarding the occurrence, which took place on 27.11.2022 at 5.00 p.m, i.e., four days prior to the occurrence alleged by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), in her application for registration of FIR in the instant case. Under the circumstances there was no occasion for recording of cross-version of the abovementioned Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4) as observed in impugned order dated 26.01.2023, of the learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal. Even otherwise, Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent Ko.4), herself was a member of the complainant party of the above-referred FIR No.970/2022, therefore, order regarding recording of cross-version of a member of the complainant party of the said FIR, is not understandable. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, has however, subinitted that if order regarding recording of cross-version has wrongly been passed even then this Court can pass an order for registration of FIR, as cognizable offences are made out in this case against the petitioner and other proposed accused. In this respect, perusal of the medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), shows that her injuries were declared by the concerned Medical Officer as Shajjah-i-Khafifah and Gayr Jaifah Damiyah punishable under sections 337A(i)/337F(i) P.P.C. The abovementioned offences are non-cognizable, therefore, on the basis of medico legal report of respondent No.4, an order for registration of FIR cannot be passed. Although learned counsel for respondent No.4, has argued that a cognizable offence under section 452 P.P.C., was made out in this case against the petitioner and her other co-accused because they trespassed into the house of the abovementioned respondent, which argument has been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that in order to make it a case of cognizable offence, the story regarding house tres pass has been concocted by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4). I have noted that in its comments furnished by the police before the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace, Narowal it was categorically mentioned that as per medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), her injuries were insignificant, whereas the other allegations levelled by respondent No.4, were not found to be correct. Under the circumstances, there is no justification to pass an order for registration of FIR against Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) and others as no cognizable offence is prima facie made out in this case.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22-A
Registration of cross-version
Scope
Petitioner (lady) filed constitutional petition against the order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent /lady, the concerned SHO was ordered to record her (respondent's) cross-version
Allegation /assertion of the respondent was that as her (respondent's) mother lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others that they had administered poison to her dog and due to said grudge, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent and while trespassing into her house causedinjuries on her body
Respondent , in her application for registration of FIR , had not mentioned the date on which the occurrence took place
Respondent moved application before the District Police Officer 8 days after her medico legal examination was conducted
Occurrence alleged by respondent took place after four daysof earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner regarding the occurrence
Thus, in the present case, there was no occasion for recording of cross-version of the respondent
High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace ; resultantly the application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent stood dismissed
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
S. 22-A
Registration of cross-version
Scope
Petitioner (lady) filed constitutional petition against the order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent /lady, the concerned SHO was ordered to record her (respondent's) cross-version
Allegation /assertion of the respondent was that as her (respondent's) mother lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others that they had administered poison to her dog and due to said grudge, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent and while trespassing into her house caused injuries on her body
Respondent herself was member of the complainant party of the FIR already registered regarding the occurrence , therefore, recording of cross-version of a member of the complainant party of the said FIR, was not understandable
High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace ; resultantly the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent stood dismissed
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
S. 22-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337A(i) & 337F(i)
Shajjah-khafifah and ghayr jaifah damiyah
Non-cognizable offence(s)
Registration of FIR
Scope
Cross-version
Scope
Petitioner (lady) filed constitutional petition against the order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent /lady, the concerned SHO was ordered to record her (respondent's) cross-version
Allegation of the respondent was that as her (respondent's) mother lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others that they had administered poison to her dog and due to said grudge, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent and while trespassing into her house causedinjuries on her body
Submission of the respondent was that if order regarding recording of cross-version had wrongly been passed even then the High Court could pass an order for registration of FIR, as cognizable offences were made out against the petitioner
Perusal of the Medico Legal Report of respondent showed that her injuries were declared by the concerned Medical Officer as shajjah-khafifah and ghayr jaifah damiyah punishable under Ss.337A(i)/337F(i), P.P.C., which offences were non-cognizable, therefore, on the basis of Medico Legal Report of respondent, an order for registration of FIR could not be passed
High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace ; resultantly the application under S.22-A Cr.P.C, filed by respondent stood dismissed
Constitutional petition was allowed , in circumstances.
S. 22-A
Penal Code ( XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 337A(i),337F(i) & 452
Shajjah-khafifah, ghayr Jaifah damiyah, house-trespass
Registration of cross-version
Scope
FIR, registration of
Scope
Petitioner (lady ) filed constitutional petition against the order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, filed by respondent /lady, the concerned SHO was ordered to record her (respondent's) cross-version
Allegation /assertion of the respondent was that as her (respondent's) mother lodged an FIR against the petitioner and others that they had administered poison to her dog and due to said grudge, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent and while trespassing into her house caused injuries on her body
Argument of the respondent was that a cognizable offence under S.452, P.P.C., was made out against the petitioner and other co-accused because they trespassed into the house of the respondent
Comments furnished by the police before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace categorically mentioned that as per Medico Legal Report of the respondent , her injuries were insignificant, whereas the other allegations levelled by respondent were not found to be correct
Thus, there was no justification to pass an order for registration of FIR against the petitioner and others as no cognizable offence was prima facie made out in the present case
High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace ; resultantly the application under S.22-A Cr.P.C, filed by respondent stood dismissed
Constitutional petition was allowed , in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.
This constitutional petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.01.2023, passed by the learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal, whereby on the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C, filed by respondent No.4, the concerned SHO was ordered to record cross-version of.Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), and proceed further strictly, in accordance with the law.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per brief facts of the present case, Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), moved an application before the District Police Officer, Narowal against Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) and others with the allegation that her (respondent No.4's) mother lodged FIR No.970/2022, offence under section 429 P.P.C., at Police Station Saddar Narowal against the petitioner and others with the allegation that they had administered poison to her dog and due to the above-mentioned grudge on 30.12.2022, the petitioner and her co-accused launched an attack on respondent No.4 and while trespassing into her house caused injuries on her body. I have noted that FIR No.970/2022, was lodged by Mst. Naziran Bibi (mother of Mst. Shamim Bibi respondent No.4), regarding the occurrence, which took place on 27.11.2022, at 5.00 p.m, during which her dog was statedly administered poison by the husband of Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) namely Muhammad Akram and others. Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), moved an application for registration of FIR regarding the occurrence which took place on a date, which has not been mentioned in the said application. However, the above-referred application for registration of FIR was moved by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), before the District Police Officer, Narowal on 07.01.2023 however, her medico legal examination was conducted on 30.12.2022 at 8.20 p.m. In the medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), the concerned Medical Officer has mentioned the duration of injures within five hours, which means that the occurrence alleged by respondent No.4, took place on 30.12.2022 around 3.00/4.00 p.m, whereas the earlier FIR No.970/2022, was lodged regarding the occurrence, which took place on 27.11.2022 at 5.00 p.m, i.e., four days prior to the occurrence alleged by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), in her application for registration of FIR in the instant case. Under the circumstances there was no occasion for recording of cross-version of the abovementioned Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4) as observed in impugned order dated 26.01.2023, of the learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal. Even otherwise, Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent Ko.4), herself was a member of the complainant party of the above-referred FIR No.970/2022, therefore, order regarding recording of cross-version of a member of the complainant party of the said FIR, is not understandable. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, has however, subinitted that if order regarding recording of cross-version has wrongly been passed even then this Court can pass an order for registration of FIR, as cognizable offences are made out in this case against the petitioner and other proposed accused. In this respect, perusal of the medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), shows that her injuries were declared by the concerned Medical Officer as Shajjah-i-Khafifah and Gayr Jaifah Damiyah punishable under sections 337A(i)/337F(i) P.P.C. The abovementioned offences are non-cognizable, therefore, on the basis of medico legal report of respondent No.4, an order for registration of FIR cannot be passed. Although learned counsel for respondent No.4, has argued that a cognizable offence under section 452 P.P.C., was made out in this case against the petitioner and her other co-accused because they trespassed into the house of the abovementioned respondent, which argument has been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that in order to make it a case of cognizable offence, the story regarding house tres pass has been concocted by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4). I have noted that in its comments furnished by the police before the learned ex-officio Justice of Peace, Narowal it was categorically mentioned that as per medico legal report of Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), her injuries were insignificant, whereas the other allegations levelled by respondent No.4, were not found to be correct. Under the circumstances, there is no justification to pass an order for registration of FIR against Mst. Safia Bibi (petitioner) and others as no cognizable offence is prima facie made out in this case.
4. It is, however, observed that Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), may avail the alternate remedy of filing a private complaint.
5. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 26.01.2023, passed by the learned ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal is hereby set-aside. Resultantly petition under section 22-A of Cr.P.C, filed by Mst. Shamim Bibi (respondent No.4), for registration of FIR against the petitioner and others stands dismissed. MQ/S-28/L Petition allowed.