1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---This criminal miscellaneous application arises, from the order of the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Mirpurkhas, passed on an application filed by respondent No,1 under section 22-A and B Cr.P.C. For registration of a case on the allegation of murder of one Sulleman Khaskheli, who was said to have been killed by the applications 16-7-2010.
2. Perusal of police record shows that the death of Sulleman Khaskheli was reported to the police. It is mentioned in the diary sheet that Sulleman Khaskheli complained of chest pains and when his condition worsened he was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead on 16-7-2010..
3. Medical report says that he died his natural death. It was argued by applicants counsel that on 11- 5-2011 the widow of the deceased Sulleman Khaskheli filed a complaint with D.P.O. Against the applicant party with regard to some dispute on property. In the said complaint it was mentioned that her husband has died but nowhere it was mentioned that her husband was murdered by any of the applicants.
4. ' It is also argued by the counsel for the applicants that the mother and the brother of the deceased are still alive but they also did not file any complaint with regard to murder of Sulleman Khaskheli. He relied upon the cases of NAZIR AHMED v. A.S.J. (2011 PCr.LJ 396) and RAI ASHRAF v.
5. MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI (PLD 2010 SC 691), wherein it has been held that provisions of section 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. Are not to be invoked in a mechanical and arbitrary manner.
6. ' Counsel for the respondent No,1 on the other hand, argued that a person has lost his life and whether he was murdered or not can only be decided by the police and this can be done by registration of an F.I.R.
7. ' Khan Muhammad, the brother-in-law of the deceased, who is also the complainant of the application under section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. Is present in Court. On query from the Court he stated that the act of alleged murder was committed in his presence but at that time the police official asked him not to lodge any complaint and at that time, Arfat, the son of deceased Sulleman Khaskheli, was the in U.S.A, therefore, he and the widow of the deceased waited until the son returns from U.S.A. The son of the deceased is also present in Court, upon a query from this Court, stated that he returned within 10-12 days of the death of his father and it was very difficult to level allegation of murder against anyone unless there was some evidence to support such allegation.
8. ' Learned A.P.-G., on the other hand argued that no act of murder was reported at the appropriate stage. The health condition of the deceased worsened and he was taken to hospital and the medical report shows that he died natural death. He contended that the provisions of section 22-A & B, Cr.P.C. Not to be applied in mechanical manner and there is a remedy of filing a direct complaint.
9. ' The complainant of the F.I.R. Said police had stopped him from lodging F.I.R. Then son of the deceased was in USA who was to be consulted. The widow of the deceased made a complaint about property matter with the accused party but if murder had taken place then why it was not reported for more than 10 months.
10. After considering the arguments of learned counsel and the statements of Khan Muhammad and Arfat and pet using the record, it is quite evident that prior to the filing of the application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. On 31-5-2011 none of the relatives of the deceased had complained that Suleman Khaskheli was murdered. From 16-7-2010 to 31-5-2011 at no stage it was alleged that murder has taken place though applications during this period had been filed to report property dispute. In the circumstances, the Sessions Judge was not justified to invoke provisions of sections 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed.