This application under Section 561-A of the, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 24th August 2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sibi in his capacity as Justice of the Peace, whereby. he, after obtaining report from the SHO concerned, dismissed the application, moved by the applicant, under Section 22-A of the, Cr.P.C., seeking registration of FIR against Muhammad Ismail and six others on the charge of murder.
2. Mr. Muhammad Nasir Marri, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the allegations levelled in the complaint disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and the SHO concerned was under legal obligation as required under Section 154 of the, Cr.P.C. to register a case against the culprits. He further argued that Justice of the Peace was not authorized to hold an inquiry or to analyze the allegations laid before him to determine its truth or falsity, thus, the Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge has failed to exercise its power by declining to pass the directions sought for.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available before me.
From the order impugned herein, it is apparent that the same was passed after calling a report from the concerned SHO and the record of crime No, 160 of 2011 of Police Station, Bhag under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against .Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 lodged by one Dil Murad was also considered for refusing registration of the FIR, and the ex-officio, Justice of the Peace, has also heard the Advocate for the applicant, before passing the order.
4. It is true that under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the, Cr.P.C., powers are given to ex-officio Justice of the Peace to direct the police officials to record the statement in the prescribed register, if a cognizable offence is made out. These powers are very limited and, while exercising such powers, the ex-officio Justice of the Peace should not enter into disputed question of facts to find out the truth and, on the basis of the application made before him, has to form his opinion, but it is equally true that in an appropriate case, depending upon the circumstances thereof, an ex-officio Justice of the Peace, may refuse to issue a direction regarding registration of FIR and may dismiss the complaint under Section 22-A of the, Cr.P.C. The Justice of the Peace is not expected and required to allow the request of complainant mechanically, blindly and without application of legal mind. He is required to examine whether the information did or did not constitute a cognizable offence. It is now settled that in case, ex-officio Justice of the Peace, after examination of a complaint, come to the conclusion that the allegation levelled by the complaining person appears to be false and fabricated, he may be legally justified in turning down the request for registration of a case. While holding this view, I am fortified by a judgment of "Khizer Hayat v. Inspector General of Police (Purdah)" reported in PLD 2005 Lahore 470, wherein it has held as under:
2. "The officer in charge of the relevant Police Station may be under a statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. whenever information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is provided to him but the provisions of Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. do not make it obligatory for an ex-officio Justice of the Peace to necessarily or blind-foldedly issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case whenever a complaint is filed before him in that regard. An ex-officio Justice of the Peace should exercise caution and restraint in this regard and he may call for comments of the officer in charge of the relevant Police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that he may be apprised of the reasons why the local police have not registered a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. If the comments furnished by the officer in charge of the relevant Police Station disclose no justifiable reason for not registering a criminal case on the basis of the information supplied by the complaining person then an ex-officio Justice of the peace would be justified in issuing a direction that a criminal case be registered and investigated. It is not obligatory for the officer in charge of a Police Station or for an ex-officio Justice of the Peace to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused party before registration of a criminal case or before issuing a direction in that regard. In an appropriate case, depending upon the circumstances thereof an ex-officio Justice of the Peace may refuse to issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case and may dismiss the complaint under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. reminding the complaining person of his alternate statutory remedies under Sections 156(3) and 190, Cr.P.C. The impression entertained by a large section of the legal community in our country that in case of filing of a private complaint the accused person cannot be arrested and recovery cannot be effected from him is nothing but erroneous and fallacious."
5. Adverting to the complaint in hand. I am of the considered view that ex-officio Justice of the Peace has discussed/ considered contents of the complaint and has given valid reasons for its conclusion. The impugned order does not suffer from arty illegality or material irregularity. The same is neither perverse nor arbitrary. No doubt, an ex-officio Justice of the Peace, as already observed above, cannot go into veracity of the information in question, but at the same, it is permissible for Lim to examine the complaint as to whether it did or did not constitute a cognizable offence. The record reveals that on 27th July 2011, one Dil Murad lodged FIR No, 16 of 2011 at Police Station Bhag, under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 and in pursuance of said FIR, the police party, under the supervision of DPO, Bagh, and Assistant Commissioner, Bagh, raided Goth Machi and in result of cross firing, two dacoits, viz, Qaisar Khan and Muhammad lost their lives. The record is also indicative of the fact that the deceased persons, being notorious and profecional dacoits, were involved in a number of cases, detail whereof is given below: {{TABLE}} S.No, FIR No, Police StationOffences
1. 16 of 2011 Manjoo Shoori17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 2 . 17 of 2011 Manjoo Shoori 324,353,332,333 read with Section 34 of the PPC 109 of 2005Manjoo Shoori337-H(2) read with Sections 147 and 149 of the PPC 29 of 2007Bhag 324, 353,186 read with . Sections 147 and 149 of the PPC 54 of 2007Bhag 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 38 of 1988Bhag 365-A read with Sections 147 and 149 of the PPC 03 of 2009Bhag 365-A read with Section 34 of the PPC 14 of 2009Bhag 365, 427 read with Sections 147 and 149 of the PPC 17 of 2011Bhag 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
16 of 2011Bhag 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 46 of 2009 Dera Murad Jamali365 read with Section 34 of the PPC. {{TABLE}} Thus, in the light of above discussion, it has been concluded that deceased Qaisar Khan and Muhammad Khan were not murdered in a way as mentioned in the complaint, rather they were notorious dacoits, who were wanted in a number of cases and were killed in encounter. The application under Section 22-A of the, Cr.P.C. seems to be an attempt on the part of the applicant, only to pressurize the police, as the result of investigation in Crime No, 160 of 2011 was not suiting to the mala fide of the applicant. Even otherwise, the claim of the applicant appears to be a claim, which can be accepted only with a lump of salt. Therefore, the application, being without substance, is hereby dismissed.