' SYED YAHY A ZAHID GILANI, J.---Mr. Aurangzeb Khattak, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.
Khan, exercising the powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Directed in his order dated 7-11-2007 that the report of Mst. Noor Jehan, was since disclosing a cognizable offence, be registered against the respondents under section 154, Cr.P.C. For further necessary action according to law. Since the nominated accused in the report of Mst. Noor Jehan are petitioners Salahuddin Khan, S.H.O., Muhammad Yousaf A.S.-I. And Mst. Shagufta Niazi lady constable of Police at D.I. Khan, they have impugned the aforesaid order in this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For its quashment.
2. I have heard the petitioners personally at length and perused the available record.
3. Petitioners had hotly contested the proceedings before learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I.
Khan, before he passed the impugned order. The main ground on which petitioners are contesting registration of F.I.R. Are that the petitioner Noor Jehan is the daughter of Muhammad Ramzan had harboured a proclaimed offender Mst. Fahmeeda. So, they raided the house of Muhammad Ramzan for arrest of the P.O., but the P.O. Was facilitated to make her escape good by creating yelling protest of ladies, to divert attention of the raiding party and by physically attacking on the police party. The allegation of Mst. Noor Jehan is thus motivated by her whim to insult police, in retaliation.
4. The above mentioned ground of the petitioners, who belong to police force, may or may not be correct. It is a question of fact to be,decided at appropriate time, at relevant forum. The paramount question to be decided under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Is always that whether commission of a cognizable offence has been alleged or not?
5. Plain reading of section 154,Cr.P.C. Would reveal that it is mandatory for the police to record first information report under section 154, Cr.P.C. If a cognizable offence is alleged. Superior Courts have time and again reiterated the requirement of strict compliance of section 154, Cr.P.C. I would like to add at this juncture that refusal of registration of F.I.R., when commission of an cognizable offence is reported to police, is a sheer neglect at the part of concerned police officer/official in performance of his duty, which must expose him to departmental disciplinary action by the concerned authorities.
6. Due to widespread complaints since long, powers section 22-A, Cr.P.C. And its subsection (6) was added by Criminal Procedure Code (3rd Amendment) Ordinance of 2002 (CXXXI of 2002), It provided authority to Justice of Peace to issue appropriate direction to police C authorities on a complaint regarding non-registration of F.I.R. Side by side section 25,Cr.P.C. Was also substituted by the same Ordinance wherein the Sessions Judges, and on nomination by them, the Additional Sessions Judges have been declared ex. Officio-Justice of Peace.
7. When section 154, section 22-A(6)(i) and section 25, Cr.P.C. Are read in justaposition, the only conclusion emerges that the Ex. Officio Justice of Peace has been given supervisory administrative jurisdiction over police officers/officials related to registration of first information report and in a case where Ex. Officio Justice of Peace finds that the incident of cognizable offence was reported to police but no F.I.R.. Was registered, he is required by law to issue a direction for registration of case and in case of non-compliance of his order, the concerned police officer/official will expose him to the consequent legal action.
8. The police officers/officials are always reluctant to register F.I.R. Against police officers for many reasons, the predominant being that they pre-judge the situation and discards the contents of the report on the basis of their personal information or information supplied by their colleagues. It should always be kept in mind that registration of F.I.R., on the one hand is the compliance of mandatory provision of section 154, Cr.P.C., but on the other hand it does not mean that the person nominated as accused therein is the actual offender and guilty. It only sets the law in motion for investigation. In the prevailing system, after registration of the F.I.R., the investigation wing of the police station shall investigate into the matter to collect pro & contra material to reach at conclusion necessary- for preparation of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C., remaining in the four corners of law and justice. In this process the powers under section 169, Cr.P.C., that the accused may or may not be arrested immediately, or that he may be placed in column No,2, if the facts of the case so demand, can be exercised as a normal course. If the complainant is found to have lodged a false report, a case can be registered against him under section 182,P.P.C. Or any other action can be initiated against him according to law. But in spite of all that, registration of F.I.R.
Regarding a cognizable offence cannot be refused, because no one is exempted in the scheme of law codified under section 154, Cr.P.C. Including the police officers/officials. The philosophy behind it is that no complaint of citizen regarding cognizable offence should remain out of the book and any such complaint must be considered and disposed of according to law. In fact section 154, Cr.P.C. Secures the inherent right of hearing of a citizen and it bestows a sacred duty upon State machinery established in every Police Station to register the cognizable grievance of citizens.
9. It was frequent violation of section 154, Cr.P.C. In the Police Stations, which forced the legislature to introduce section 22-A(6) and section 25, Cr.P.C. In the Criminal Procedure Code to provide a responsible forum at the door step of citizens for rescue against unlawful declines relating to registration of F.I.Rs,, in cognizable cases.
10. Now returning to "the case in hand, I have gone through the allegations of Mst.Noor Jehan in the application moved before ex. Officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Which contains the allegations constituting cognizable offence and I hold that it was rightly accepted through the impugned order for registration of F.I.R. The impugned order is thus unexceptionable and needs no interference in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
11. In limine.