1. FAISAL ARAB, J.--- Grievance of the applicant is that the applicant in the first instance approached the S.H.O. Concerned to lodge F.I.R., but was refused. Thereafter he approached the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by moving application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. For seeking direction to the S.H.O. Concerned to lodge the F.I.R. But the same was also declined on the ground that the proposed accused had conducted a lawful raid on the office of applicant, which cannot be said to be a cognizable offence. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant has filed the present application.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant states that the raid was conducted by the proposed accused in his absence and the acts committed by the raiding party during raid, itself constitute a criminal offence. Learned counsel states that during the raid, the proposed accused committed a cognizable offence and the remedy by making complaint under section 154, Cr.P.C. Cannot be deprived to the applicant if a cognizable offence is made out.
3. Needless to mention that lodging of report by itself does not amount to give a license to the police to make arrests, however, after investigation into the allegation if sufficient material comes out only then the police can proceed in accordance with law.
4. I find that though the accused persons were party in the Court of Sessions Judge Umerkot, they have not been impleaded in the present application. Mr. Madad Ali Shah learned counsel for the petitioner states that accused persons cannot claim notice, when allegations of crime are being reported against them. Law does not provide that notice should be given to the accused persons before the complaint is lodged under section 154, Cr.P.C. He relied upon the case of Islamuddin v.
5. P.O.
6. Sindh and others 1995 M LD 372, wherein it has been held that neither at the time of registration of F.I.R. Prior notice is necessary nor such notice is necessary when a petition is filed complaining of noncompliance of the mandate given in section 154, Cr.P.C. Similar view was taken in the case of Mst. Bhaitan v. The State and 3 others PLD 2005 Kar.
7. 621.
8. In these circumstances, the applicant shall approach the concerned police station and the S.H.O.
9. Who is present in Court, shall record his statement and upon his statement if a cognizable offence is made out he shall register the F.I.R.
10. ' With these directions present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.