' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---With a view to decide the matter on merits, the main application is restored and is taken up for decision on merits.
2. According to the prosecution, complainant Majid Shah restrained the applicant No.1 from selling narcotics in his mohalla on which the latter was greatly annoyed. On 13-2-2006, at about 2230 hours, applicant No,1, accompanied by his maternal uncle Rasheed, abused the complainant and started beating him with sticks. In order to save himself, the complainant ran into his house but the applicants, along with Shehzad (applicant No.2), Ali Gohar, Rasheed and 2 others relatives, followed him, trespassed into his house and beat him with fists, kicks and sticks. His brother Anwar Shah tried to save him on which the assailants beat him also. Besides the two victims, the incident was witnessed by Sajjad, Rafique and other residents of the mohallah. The matter was reported to police immediately and an F.I.R., bearing No,51 of 2006, for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 452, 504 and 337(A)(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, was registered against them at Police Station Mominabad on 14-2-2006, at 0015 hours.
3. On the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 28-2-2006 and cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate. The applicant No,1 was on pre-arrest bail, while Rasheed, Shehzad and Ali Gohar were shown as absconders.
4. On the application of the applicant No,1, the matter was reinvestigated and the report of reinvestigation was filed before the Magistrate on 23-8-2007 i.e, after one and half years of his taking the cognizance. According to the report of the reinvestigation, no cognizable offence was made out against the applicants, because no case for selling narcotics had been registered against the applicants and all the witnesses of the complainant were his relatives. The Investigating Officer requested the Magistrate for granting approval for the disposal of case in A- class. The Magistrate, who had already taken cognizance of the case, did not agree for the disposal of the case in A-class. According to the Bombay Presidency Police Guide, which is being following in Sindh since the days Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency, Police can dispose of only those cases in A-class which are true but evidence is not sufficient to send the accused for trial. The reasons assigned by the officer conducting reinvestigation for the disposal of case in A- class are not convincing. Non-registration of narcotic case against the applicants is no reasons to hold them innocent in the present case. Indeed, it is not the case of the complainant that the applicants were annoyed with him on his lodging any complaint against them. His case is that he had restrained the applicant No,1 from selling narcotics in the mohallah on which he was annoyed with him. Similarly, relationship of the witnesses with the complainant is also not a convincing reason for the disposal of case in A-class. Deeper appreciation of evidence is primarily function of the Court and not of police. Cases cannot be disposed of by police in A-class only because the witnesses are related to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to show any provision of law under which a Magistrate can grant administrative approval for the disposal of a case in 'A', 'B' or 'C' class of which he has already taken cognizance i.e, initiated proceedings for the trial of the accused. Taking cognizance of a case is a judicial act which cannot be nullified by an administrative act. Grant or refusal of permission for the disposal of case in any class is the administrative act of a Magistrate.
6. According to the Bombay Presidency Police Guide, report of investigation under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is to be filed either in the form of a charge-sheet, if the accused is sent for trial, or in the form of a Final Report, in other cases. Final Reports are classified into 'A' -- true cases, 'B' maliciously false cases, 'C' --neither true nor maliciously false cases and non- cognizable cases.
7. The Courts are not bound by arbitrary opinions of the Investigating Officers. They have to apply their independent mind to the facts and circumstances of a case. A Court can take cognizance even on negative report and can refuse to take cognizance on a positive report, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Since the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the case and initiated proceedings for the trial of the accused, which was his judicial act, no exception can be taken to his administrative act of not approving the report of the re-investigation for the disposal of case in A-class filed after about one and half year of his taking the cognizance. The application, being merit-less, is dismissed.