' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---In all the aforementioned Criminal Miscellaneous Applications a common legal issue is involved viz. The powers of the Magistrate under section 190(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Therefore they are being disposed of by this common order to the extent of such legal issue. The merits of each case are discussed separately.
2. The brief facts in Cr. M.A. No,64/2005 per F.I.R. No,153/2004 of P.S. Mirwah, are that Respondents/Accused Mumtaz Ali, Mir Hassan and Mehdi Hassan appeared on the outer door of the Complainant's residence being armed with pistols and a repeater. Deceased Nisar Ahmed answered the call at the door whereupon he was shot down in cold-blood by accused Mumtaz Ali.
After registration of the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and reached the conclusion that the death of the deceased was accidental as his pistol went off when he was cleaning it. Such investigation was verified by D.S.P. (Investigation) Khairpur and hence it was recommended by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) Khairpur that the case be disposed of in terms of section 174, Cr.P.C. Being an accidental death. The learned Magistrate viz. Ist. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Mirwah after hearing the parties as well as the District Attorney accepted the Report vide order dated 28-5-2005 and disposed of the case in terms of section 174, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Applicant/Complainant being aggrieved thereof has filed this Cr. Misc.
Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Praying that the impugned order be set aside and as this is a Sessions case, it be sent to the appropriate Court for trial after submission of challan.
3. The facts of Cr.M.A. No, 72/2005 per F.I.R. No,68/2005 of P.S., A-Section, Khairpur, are that on the night of the incident Applicant/Complainant was sleeping along with his family members in his house when there was a knock at the door at which he saw respondents Syed Ashique Hussain Shah, Syed Ronaq Hussain Shah and Faiq Hussain Shah standing there with pistols out of whom accused Ashique Hussain Shah instigated the other accused to murder the Complainant.
Thereupon these accused fired at him but he saved himself by taking shelter behind a wall and raised cries. Then Muhammad Ibrahim, Iqrar Ali and others came to the scene whereupon the accused made good their escape. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer recommended the disposal of the case as cancelled on the ground that no evidence was available in the matter against the accused and accordingly the learned Magistrate viz. IIIrd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur passed the impugned order dated 18-6-2005 accepting the version of the police. Being aggrieved by the same, the Complainant has filed this Application under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Praying that the further prosecution of the accused be ordered in the Court of Competent jurisdiction.
4. The facts of Cr.M.A. No,85/2005 per F.I.R. No,29/2005 of PS, A-Section, Khairpur, are that on the day of incident the Complainant along with Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Chhutal had gone to pick up their brother Munawar Ali from the Central Prison Khairpur whose Bail Application had been accepted. Meanwhile they saw that a private Suzuki Pick-up had also appeared and some of the Applicants/Accused alighted therefore armed with Kalashnikovs. They encircled the Complainant and his brothers and beat them with the butts of their weapons and thereafter put them in the vehicle. They also picked up Munawar Ali and tied his hands and feet after beating him as well. He was also put in the vehicle. Then they were taken to an isolated place where accused Hakim Ali Jalbani told the other accused that these are my old enemies and hence should be killed while showing a police encounter. Thereupon the Complainant and the others were taken out from the vehicle and made to stand in a queue when suddenly another vehicle arrived out of which accused Ghulam Sarwar Dreho and Mir Imdad Hussain Talpur came out and also beat the complainant party and tied the Complainant as well as Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Chhutal with a towel and threw them near the road side while kidnapping Munawar Ali for the purpose of murder. The matter was investigated thereafter the Investigating Officer opined the case to be disposed of as cancelled being false. However, the learned Magistrate refused to accept the report of the Investigating Officer vide the impugned order dated 13-7-2005 and directed that the challan should be filed. The Applicants/Accused vide this Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Have prayed that such impugned order be set aside.
5. Mr. Ghulam Shabir Shar and Mr. Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja appearing for the Applicant/Complainant in Cr. M.A. No,64/2005 and 72/2005 as well as Mr. Javed Hussain Mirbahar appearing for the Respondent No,3 /Complainant whilst addressing arguments on the preliminary issue vis-a-vis the learned Magistrate's powers under section 190(2) of the Cr.P.0 have vehemently' submitted that he cannot deal with any police report under section 173 or 174, Cr.P.C. Either accepting or refusing the same in a Sessions Case. According to all the learned Counsel such report is to be forwarded to the concerned Sessions Judge, for disposal according to law. On the other hand Mr. Zubair Ahmed Rajput appearing for the Respondents/Accused in CrI.M.A. No,64/2005 and Applicants/Accused in Cr.M.A No, 85/2005 and Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar appearing for the Respondents/Accused in Crl. M.A.
No,72/2005 have 'submitted that the wording of section 190(2) makes it very clear that the Magistrate is fully empowered to deal with such Police reports and thereafter either accept the same or reject them.
6. In support of their submissions M/s. Ghulam Shabeer Shar, Javed Hussain Mirbahar and Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja have relied upon Bahadur v. The State (PLD 1985 SC 62), Mehar Khan v. Yakoob Khan (1981 SCMR 267), Raja Khushbakhtoor Rehman v. The State (1985 SCMR 1314), Abdul Qadir v.
The State (2000 PCr.LJ 520), Arif Ali Khan v. The State (1993 SCMR 187), Hussain Ahmad v. Mst. Irshad Bibi (1997 SCMR 1503), Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal (2002 SCMR 63), Muzaffar Iqbal v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 125) and Muhammad Ali v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1323). On the other hand M/s. Liaquat Ali Shar and Zubair Ahmed Rajput have relied upon Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant Commissioner (1995 MLD 1744), Muhammad Shareef v. The State (1997 SCMR 304), Awal Khan v. The Superintendent of Police (1989 PCr.LJ 909), Wazeer v. The State (PLD 1962 W.P (Lah) 405), Muhammad Arif Raza Ansari v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Bahawalpur through its Chairman and 10 others ( 2001 MLD 1435), Hamid Muqeem Bukhary v. The State (PLD 1985 Lahore 71), Bashir Ahmed v. Allaqa Magistrate (PLD 1980 Lahore 28), Farooq Sumar and others v. The State and others (2004 PCr.LJ 1023), Amir Ali v. The State (PLD 1968 Lah 537) and Habib v. The State (1983 SCMR 370).
7. The learned State Counsel as well as the learned Asstt. A.-G. Have supported the arguments of M/s. Liaquat Ali Shar and Zubair Ahmed Rajput.
8. I have heard all the learned counsel and my conclusions are as follows:
9. For the sake of convenience section 190, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced in extenso: "190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate.-(1) Any Magistrate of the first class, or any other Magistrate specially empowered by the Provincial Government on the recommendation of the High Court, may take cognizance of any offence:
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts made by any police officer;
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed which he may try or send to the Court of Session for trial.
(2) A Magistrate taking cognizance under subsection (1) of the offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to Court of Session for trial."
Upon a bare reading of section 190(1), Cr.P.C. It would be seen that all Magistrates of the First Class ( in Sindh this category has been done away with and now all Civil Judges are also Judicial Magistrates) are empowered to take cognizance of any offence and per section 190(2), Cr.P.C. a Magistrate doing so of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall without recording any evidence send the case to such Court for trial. The term "taking cognizance" has been judicially interpreted in its broad and literal sense to mean taking notice of an offence. It would include the intention of initiating judicial proceedings against an offender in respect of that offence or taking steps to determine whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings etc. Hence in essence it means the conscious application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts as stated by the police in its report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Or in a report recommending the case to be disposed of under the cancelled class. In the case of Mehar Khan v. Yaqoob Khan (supra), the Honourable Supreme. Court came to the conclusion that even though the commitment proceedings had been done away with by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, under section 190(1), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate taking cognizance of any offence is still required to apply his mind to ascertain whether the case in question is one which is required to be sent for trial to the Court of Session or whether he could try it himself. This application of mind by the Magistrate constitutes an enquiry and which means that he is not to act merely as a post office and send the case for trial to a Court of Session merely because certain sections have been applied in the challan or the private complaint. Indeed in the case of Khushbakhtoor Rehman v. The State (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court again reiterated that the word "cognizance" is a term of art implying application of the mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether the offence was one exclusively triable by Court of Session in which case the Magistrate was bound to send it to such Court for trial. Of course such course of action would only be followed if the Magistrate concurred with the Police report under section 170, Cr.P.C. In case the Magistrate finds that the accused are not to be sent for trial based upon the material present before him, he may decline, to take cognizance and discharge the accused . To the contrary he may also refuse to accept the Police report for discharging the accused and take cognizance of the matter and thereafter send the accused for trial in Sessions Court. Hence in my opinion the enquiry to be conducted by the Magistrate also includes and exercise to determine whether or not the accused are to be sent up for trial in a Sessions case which means that he must pass a reasoned order after conscious application of mind to the material present before him. This conclusion is supported by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal (supra), wherein the order of the Magistrate rejecting the Application moved by the Police for discharge of the accused in a murder case was upheld being neither perverse nor capricious but passed after an indepth scrutiny of the record . Similarly in the case of Muhammad Shareef v. The State (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court again upheld the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused in a case registered against them under sections 10 and 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Such conclusion was also reached by the learned Lahore High Court in the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Allaqa Magistrate, Awal Khan v. The Superintendent of Police and Hamid Muqeem Bokhary v. The State (supra). To the contrary in the case of Arif Ali Khan v. The State 1993 SCMR 187 the Honourable Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the order of discharging the accused in a Sessions case merely amounted to an abuse of the process of law and hence the order of the learned Lahore High Court setting aside the same was upheld. The Honourable Supreme Court in the said case also reached the conclusion that although the order of the Magistrate is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. But the same could be assailed under the inherent jurisdiction possessed by the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. i,e, where the orders passed by a criminal Court clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court can rectify such injustice. Similarly the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Ahmed v.
Irshad Bibi (supra), upheld the order of the Peshawar High Court whereby the order of the Magistrate in a murder case discharging the accused was quashed on the ground that it was a mechanical order passed without application of mind and hence unfair and unjust. In view of the aforecited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, it would be seen that the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction- under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. Does so in an administrative capacity and does not function in a judicial one since he is only to apply his mind to the material present before him and thereafter decide whether he should take cognizance or not. If he decides to do so in a case triable by him then he should pass a speaking order after a fair assessment of such materials and then proceed to try the case himself. If he accepts the police report or otherwise discharge the accused where he does not agree with the same. Similarly he should send the case to the Sessions Court if it is a Sessions case upon acceptance of the police report and again discharge the accused if he does not agree with the same. However, it is to be noted that the exercise to be conducted by the Magistrate under section 190, Cr.P.C. Is not a judicial one, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Ahmad v. Irshad Bibi (supra), he cannot determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but only has to assess the evidence on the record in a summary fashion and thereafter make up his mind whether or not to discharge the accused.
10. As to the merits of the case in Cr.M.A. 64 of 2005, Mr. Ghulam Shabir Shar has submitted that the accused viz. Mumtaz Ali Siyal, Mir Hassan Bozdar and Mehdi Hassan Bozdar have all been nominated in the F.I.R. As being available at the door of the Complainant's residence while being fully armed with deadly weapons out of which accused Mumtaz Ali shot the deceased with his pistol. Further that the F.I.R. Is supported by the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the eye-witnesses viz. Imtiaz Hussain and Ramz Ali. So also per learned Counsel the eyewitness account is corroborated by the post-mortem report of the deceased viz. He had died due to a single bullet injury.
11. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused Mr. Zuber Ahmed Rajput has submitted that per the impartial police enquiry carried out in the matter, the Respondent/Accused have been found to be innocent. He has therefore fully supported the impugned order which is a speaking one and takes into consideration the entire evidence available with the prosecution as well as the investigation report.
12. The learned Asstt. A.-G. Has also supported the impugned order.
13. I have heard both learned counsel as well as learned Asstt. A.-G. And have perused the police file along with their assistance.
14. It would be seen that per the investigation report the I.O. Has stated that he visited the place of incident on 16-11-2004 at 0100 hours when the complainant pointed out the place where the dead body was lying in front of his house in the street. The Investigating Officer found one fire-arm injury on the right side of the abdomen which was through and through and blackening was available.
However, neither any bloodstains were found nor any empty. On enquiry about the blood-stains the Complainant went inside the house and brought such earth. The Investigating Officer also noted that there were some blood drops which led into a room in the complainant's house where a huge quantity of blood was available which was washed with fresh water. So also a `rilli' was available on the cot which was blood-stained and the cot had also been freshly washed. The Investigating Officer prepared the mashirnama on the spot and dispatched the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. He then examined Dr. Ali Gohar Bozdar, Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Ranipur who was also running his private clinic. According to this witness on the day of incident the complainant and his brother P.W. Imtiaz Hussain brought the deceased in an injured condition at his clinic at about 2100 hours for providing first aid. The complainant informed him that the deceased had received a firearm injury when he was cleaning his own pistol.
Although blood was given to the deceased but he could not survive and died after 15 minutes. One Niaz Hussain Arradin who is a laboratory technician was also examined and who supported the version of Dr. Ali Gohar Bozdar. Similarly, another witness Zafar Hussian Mallah was examined by the Investigating Officer according to him when he was present in the nearby mosque he heard a gun-shot. He along with other `namazis' went to he house of complainant and were informed about the accident and then they went to the clinic of Dr. Ali Gohar Bozdar where they saw the deceased was given first aid. There they met P.W. Imtiaz Hussian and Bakht Ali who informed them about the accident. Later on Nisar Ahmed died and his dead body was taken by the complainant party to their house. Similarly, the statements of Muhammad Ali Bozdar, Ali Murad Bozdar, Qurban Ali Bozdar and Abdul Razaq Bozdar were recorded who all stated that at the time of incident they were standing outside the Otaq of Ali Murad when they heard fire short from inside the complainant's house. Thereafter the complainant along with his brother Imtiaz Hussain and others brought the deceased Nisar Ahmed and took him to the clinic of Dr. Ali Gohar Bozdar where he died. The Investigating Officer has also opined that there is a property dispute between both the parties and hence the respondent/Accused have been malafidely involved by the complainant party. Hence he has recommended the disposal of the case in terms of section 174, Cr.P.C. As an accidental death. The entire investigating was verified by the second investigation carried out by the D.S.P. And S.P. Investigation Khairpur.
15. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances I do not see any 'reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order viz. Disposal of the case as an accidental death in terms of section 174, Cr.P.C. As he has fully discussed the police report and considered the materials present with the prosecution. Consequently, Cr.M.A. No,64 of 2005 is dismissed.
16. Mr, Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja appearing for the applicant/ Complainant in Cr.M.A. No,72 of 2005 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate accepting the police report recommending the case to be disposed of under the cancelled clause is not a speaking one and hence on this ground alone deserves to be set aside. He has further criticized the police report as being one sided since the witnesses who were examined do not reside in the same locality in which the incident occurred. Similarly the applicants/Complainant's witnesses have sworn affidavits as to the involvement of the accused but these were not taken into consideration by the police. Similarly per the Investigating Officer the complainant was seen with a Pistol by the Police party but he was never arrested.
17. On the other hand Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar appearing for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5/accused has upheld the impugned order as having been passed by the learned Magistrate after taking into account the Police report as well as all the materials present before him. According to learned counsel the applicant is a habitual litigant and has filed a number of private complaints against his family members and is also an accused in criminal cases. Furthermore the father of the applicant had lodged an F.I.R. Of the same incident against him in which he has been sent pp for trial.
18. Learned State counsel Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon has supported Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar. He has also submitted that no empty was recovered from the place of incident per the F.I.R. Lodged by the applicant. However, five empties were recovered from near his father's house as per the latter's F.I.R.
Similarly the complainant's witnesses cannot explain their presence at the scene at 2 a.m. In the morning.
19. I have heard all the learned counsel and perused the police papers with their assistance. It would be seen that as per the report filed by S.P. (Investigation), Khairpur according to the applicant/complainant accused Syed Ashique Hussian Shah along with his two sons namely Rahmat Hussain Shah and Faiq Hussian Shah made a murderous assault upon him with fire-arms at about 0200 hours on the date of the incident. On 13-4-2005 Dr. Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah the father of the complainant had also lodged a non-cognizable report in the Station Diary of A- Section Police Station, Khairpur vide Entry No,31 at 2210 hours regarding the quarrel of his son with the latter's servant objecting over passing through the common street. Next day Dr. Syed Mushtaq Hussian Shah lodged another F.I.R.No,66 of 2005 at the same Police Station regarding the same incident as the present F.I.R. Viz. That the applicant had made aerial firing from his Pistol and issued threats of murder at about 0200 hours to his father near his house. He informed the Police on telephone who arrived in a Mobile. The incident was witnessed by the neighbours. Thereafter the statements of independent witnesses namely Ghulam Hussain Shaikh, Nisar Hussian Shaikh and Khair Muhammad Shaikh were recorded who had stated that they had seen the applicant making aerial firing in the street and issuing threats of murder to his father and brothers. Similarly the statements of the Police Officers who had arrived at the scene were also recorded and who stated that they had seen the applicant running away. Consequently in view of the above circumstances the Investigating Officer had recommended that the case be disposed of as being false
20. In view of the investigation report and the statements of the independent witnesses who are residents of the area, I do not see any reasons to differ from the opinion of the learned Magistrate.
Insofar as the complainant's witnesses are concerned, per their affidavits filed in Court, they are not the residents of the area and are chance witnesses. It would also be seen that their affidavits are contradictory as Muhammad Ibrahim has stated that Iqrar Ali Pathan lives in Cattle Piri Mall Road whereas according to the latter he lives in Muhalla Bachal Shah. Similarly per the latter Syed Ashiq Hussain Shah had a hatchet in his hand whereas according to the former he was armed with a hockey stick. Consequently their version hardly carries any weight. Similarly no recoveries of empties were made outside the house of the Applicant whereas such recovery was made from outside of his father's house.
21. For all the foregoing reasons Cr.M.A. No,72 of 2005 is also dismissed.
22. In Cr.M.A.No,85 of 2005 Mr. Zubair Ahmed Rajput appearing for the Applicants/Accused has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to accept the case to be disposed of as cancelled/false is defective for a number of reasons. Firstly per learned counsel prior to registration of the F.I.R. In question viz. No,29 of 2005 of P.S.A.-Section, Khairpur on 22-2-2005 in respect of the incident viz. Abduction of the complainant Umed Ali and his brothers Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Chuttal and Munawar Ali by the Police party, Muhammad Azeem had filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Being Cr.M.A. No,49 of 2004 on 1-6-2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur praying for the recovery of his cousin. Munawar Ali. Thereafter a raid was conducted at P.P. Khuhra on 1-6-2004 when it was found that the detenu had been arrested in Crime No,155 of 2001, hence on 2-6-2004 the learned Sessions Judge remanded the detenu to Jail custody with directions to produce him on 16-6-2004. Thereafter Muhammad Azeem had withdrawn the aforementioned Cr.M.A. On 16-6-2004. But yet again on the same date Muhammad Azeem filed another application before the Chairman Public Safety Commission, Khairpur in respect of the abduction of Munawar Ali from outside Khairpur Jail on 9-6-2004 by the police party when he along with his brothers had gone to receive Munawar Ali as he had been granted bail on that day. Thereafter again the complainant Muhammad Azeem filed Cr.M.A. No,167 of 2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. For filing of an F.I.R. Regarding the aforestated incident on 3-7-2004 which was allowed on 7-2-2005 and hence the F.I.R. In question being Cr.No,29 of 2005 was filed on 22-2-2005. In these circumstances learned counsel has submitted that the delay in filing of the F.I.R. Has not been at all explained which raises the possibility of false implication. Secondly per learned counsel in the application filed before the learned Sessions Judge only three accused have been nominated viz. S.I.Ps.
Ghulam Sarwar, Mir Imdad Ali Talpur and Hakim Ali Jalbani whereas in the F.I.R. H.C. Manzoor Hussian as well as P.Cs. Muhammad Khan, Ghualm Shabeer, Muhammad Malok, and one other Ghulam Shabeer have been nominated which shows that it has been lodged after consultation etc. Next he has submitted that the independent investigation carried out by the D.P.O. Khairpur as per order of this Court fully establishes the falsity of the complainant's version. Finally per learned counsel no other evidence is available except the F.I.R. And the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the eye- witnesses, he has therefore, prayed that, the impugned order be set aside.
23. On the other hand Mr. Jawed Hussian Mirbahar learned counsel appearing for complainant/respondent No,3 Umed Ali has fully supported the impugned order as there is enough evidence available in the shape of the same as well as the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the eyewitnesses. As regards the report of the D.P.O. Khairpur per learned counsel this only highlights the discrepancies in the case of the complainant.
24. Learned A.A.-G. Has supported the submissions of Mr. Javed Hussian Mirbahar.
25. It would be seen that the events in chronological order appear to be that initially Muhammad Azeem had filed Cr.M.A. No,49 of 2004 on 1-6-2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For the recovery of detenu Munawar Ali and upon a raid being conducted the same day at P.P. Khuhra he was found to be detained in a pending criminal case.
Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Sessions Judge who also directed that he should be produced on 16-6-2004. In the meanwhile it appears that he was released on bail on 9-6-2004 when the alleged incident took place outside the Khairpur Jail. On 16-6-2004 Cr.M.A. No,49 of 2004 was withdrawn but on the very same day another application was moved before the Chairman, Public Safety Commission regarding the incident on 9-6-2004. Then again Muhammad Azeem moved Cr.M.A. No, 167 of 2004 on 3-7-2004 praying that the present F.I.R. Be lodged regarding the same incident which was allowed vide order dated 7-2-2005 and the F.I.R.
Filed on 22-2-2005. In view of the foregoing narration all that can be said is that instead of withdrawing earlier Cr.M.A. No,41 of 2004, the complainant party should have moved an application in the same case narrating the events which took place on 9-6-2004 outside Khairpur Jail and prayed for registration of the F.I.R. However, after the withdrawal of Cr.M.A. No,41 of 2004 on 16-6- 2004, another application was moved being Cr.M.A.No,167 of 2004 on 3-7-2004 for registration of the F.I.R. Which was eventually allowed. As regards the delay in moving the learned Sessions Judge for registration of the F.I.R. In my opinion this can be justified as it is indeed difficult for the common public to file complaints against the police. Similarly, the delay in registration of the F.I.R. Itself can also be explained in terms of the above observations. To conclude therefore in my opinion, the F.I.R is supported by the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the P. Ws: and hence I find no reasons to disagree with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Consequently, Cr.M.A. No,85 of 2005 is dismissed.