' NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J.---Petitioner Qadirullah, through the instant petition has called in question the order of Justice of Peace District, Karak dated 30-11-2011, whereby his prayer for issuance of direction for registration of case against Mst. Shaheen Begum and Nadimullah, respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively, was turned down.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.-G. Heard at length and record perused with their assistance.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.18 of 2012, for impleadment of State and Ex Officio Justice of Peace, Karak, in the panel of the respondents, which was not objected to by the learned A.A.-G., so is allowed and necessary entries in this regard be made, in the main petition.
4. The perusal of the record transpires that, Shoaibullah son of Muhammad Shafi, lodged a report that, on the day of occurrence, he along with his wife Mst. Shaheen Begum and sons Asifullah and Nadeemullah, was present in his house. In the meanwhile, his father Muhammad Shafi and brother Qadirullah, along with Zahoorullah sons of Rehmanullah, residents of Kamali Bana; armed with firearms, entered into his house. Qadirullah, started firing at them, as a result of which, his son Asifullah was hit, and died at the spot, whereas, his other son Nadeemullah, sustained injuries with the firing of Muhammad Shafi (father of the complainant) and Zahoorullah.
The complainant and his wife luckily escaped. The motive of the occurrence is a dispute over the property. The Occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and his wife Mst. Shaheen Begum. On this report, F.I.R. No.344 was registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Against accused Qadirullah, Muhammad Shafi and Zahoorullah.
5. It 'appears from the F.I.R that this occurrence took place at 8-45 a.m. On 20-10-2011, while, the report was lodged at 9-30 a.m. By the complainant in Civil Hospital Latambar. There is another F.I.R of the even date, registered in the same Police Station bearing No.345. According to the contents of F.I.R. No.345, the police party consisting of Iqbal Naveed No.86, Haq Dad No.25, Waseem Ahmed No.39, Maqsood-ul-Islam No.31 Constables, headed by Nasrullah Jan ASHO, left the Police Station for arrest of the accused of F.I.R. No.344, mentioned above, when they received information that accused Qadirullah is present in "Algadda Kashu" armed with Kalashnikov and is going to flee away towards Warana. Thus, they followed him on official vehicle, driven by Muhammad Nawaz No.295, in company of the above named constables. On sighting the accused, the police party commanded him to surrender, but he retaliated by firing on the police party. The police party also resorted to firing in their self-defence, as a result of which, the accused was injured on his right foot and was overpowered. At the time of his arrest, one Kalashnikov. Bearing No. 66 56-1H119127955, with a fixed charger, containing 13 rounds of 7.62 bore and 2 spare chargers, containing 15 rounds each of 7.62 bore, were recovered from his possession, which were taken into possession by the police and accused Qadirullah (petitioner herein) was arrested in F.I.R No.344, mentioned above.
6. As per contents of this F.I.R, registered against the present petitioner under sections 324/353, P.P.C. Read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, the incident 'took place at 10-30 a.m. After an hour, of the report of F.I.R No.344. It appears that an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed by petitioner Qadirullah before the Justice of Peace District, Karak, for registration of case against Mst. Shaheen Begum (wife) and Nadeemullah (son) of Shoaibullah, the complainant of F.I.R No.344, on 25-10-2011, with the allegation that he was injured by firing of Nadeemullah, on the direction of his mother Mst. Shaheen Begum on 19-10-2011 at 9-30 a.m. As a result of which, he was injured and was admitted in KDA Hospital Karak. He further averred in his application that he lodged report against both the respondents Mst. Shaheen Begum and her son Nadeemullah, but the local police Latambar, did not register the case against them. Hence, he filed application before the Justice of Peace, for issuance of direction for registration of cases against them.
7. The petitioner is directly charged in case F.I.R.No.344, for the murder of Asifullah (the son of Mst.
Shaheen Begum) and for causing serious firearm injuries to Nadeemullah respondent No.3 (the other son of Mst. Shaheen Begum). It also appears from the record that parties are closely related to each other. After the murder of Asifullah, the petitioner was wanted to the police in that murder case, as such, he was followed and arrested by the police, after sustaining injuries at the hands of the police party, which fact has been recorded in F.I.R No.345, of the even date. In the said F.I.R, Nasrullah Jan ASHO, has taken the responsibility of injuries on the person of the petitioner in unequivocal terms without any reservation, narrating all the details, how the injuries were caused on the person of the petitioner. In view of this factual background, it seems a shrewd attempt on the part of the petitioner, to get a case registered with a twisted version against the respondents for some ulterior motives. Admittedly, section 154, Cr.P.C. Envisages that the Officer Incharge of the Police Station shall register the case, whenever an information with regard to a cognizable offence, is reported to him. 'Likewise, section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Also empowers the Justice of Peace, for issuance of direction for registration of case, but all these powers, are never supposed to be exercised in a mechanical manner, without application of an independent mind. All the powers are vested in the authority for dispensation of justice and are never meant to be exercised in aid of injustice. If the case was registered by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station in the instant case or any direction were issued by the Justice of Peace for registration of case, it would have advanced the mala fide design of the petitioner to destroy the prosecution case for ulterior motive and would have certainly amount to misuse of a legal provision of statute. The Courts are never supposed to shut eyes from other aspects of the case and to pass orders for registration of case on a false report of any complainant. Although, there are remedial provisions under section 169, Cr.P.C. And 182 P.P.C. Against false complaints, but when the mala fide of a complainant is floating on the record and his tricky design is palpably visible, then exercise of powers under section 22- A(6), Cr.P.C. By issuance of direction for registration of the case, would be an exercise in aid of injustice, C which has never been the intention of the legislatures, in enactment of such provisions.
When the story pushed forward by the petitioner, apparently seems to be false, then why an innocent person, should be forced to go through the rigours of multiplicity of proceedings of 169, Cr.P.C. And then 182 P.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, the learned Justice of Peace, has committed no illegality or any irregularity by refusing to issue direction to the S.H.O. Concerned Police Station, for registration of the case against the respondents. Thus finding no merits, this petition is dismissed.