MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought implementation of order dated 14-6-2011, whereby on the application of the petitioner, the S.H.O.
Has A been directed to record statement of the petitioner without any deletion or alteration and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
2. Briefly the fact are that Zulfiqar Ali petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C.
Before the learned Justice of Peace seeking a direction for registration of case against Khurshid, Mehboob, Mehfooz and Muhammad Akhtar, and in the said application it had been alleged that accused had suspected illicit liaison of Muhammad Shahbaz Khan (son of the petitioner) with Mst.
Sonia Bibi (niece of respondent No,5 and maternal grand-daughter of respondents Nos.6 and 7) and for this reason the accused had called Mst. Sonia to Chak No,7. On the night between 24/25-5- 2011, the son of the complainant received a call on his Mobile No,0345-4796585 that Mehfooz is ill and is to be taken to Hospital. As the accused were neighbourers and of the same BARADARI, son of the complainant went to their house, where he was captured and detained in a room. At about 1- 34 a.m. (mid-night), Shehbaz called Muhamamd Ashraf, (his maternal uncle) on his Mobile No,0332-4871058, that he be saved from the accused. Muhammad Ashraf immediately went to the house of the respondents and knocked the door, whereupon, accused Mehfooz and. Muhammad Akhtar armed with .12-bore guns came out, hurled abuses and on gunpoint directed him to go back. Muhammad Ashraf came back, took Muhammad Khan and one cousin with him and were heading towards the house of the accused, when mother of Muhammad Ashraf also accompanied them to beg pardon from the accused. These persons knocked the door of the accused, where they heard that Khurshid was exhorting lalkara that Shehbaz be fired at. He also directed his son Mehboob to catch hold of him and was commanding other accused to make fire. At about 1:49 a.m. The persons from the complainant side heard fire shots and cries of Shehbaz. After a while the accused also fired shots at Mst. Sonia. Muhammad Ashraf told the incident to the complainant.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the application moved by him before the learned Justice of Peace, clearly commission of a cognizable offence was disclosed and furthermore, when there was an explicit direction of learned Justice of Peace for the respondent/S.H.O. To record statement of the petitioner and then proceed ahead, there was no room left with the respondent/S.H.O. Except to register an F.I.R. On the application of the petitioner.
Instead, the respondent/S.H.O. With mala fide intention, registered an F.I.R. On the statement of the respondents by twisting the real facts. The learned counsel therefore, argued that a direction be issued to the respondent/S.H.O. To comply with the order of the learned Justice of Peace and register a criminal case on the statement of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and argued that earlier to the issuance of impugned order dated 14-6-2011 by the learned Justice of Peace, already an F.I.R. With regard to the same occurrence had been recorded and the same is under investigation. Therefore, the petitioner may join the investigation and put his version before the Investigating Officer, who may juxta posed both the versions and then conclude the investigation, in accordance with law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Whatever may be the factual position of the matter, it is not for this court to comment on the same. Since, there is an explicit direction dated 14-6-2011 passed by the learned Justice of Peace directing the S.H.O. To record statement of the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with law, the same must have been complied with in letter and spirit. It is not the case of the respondents that said order of the learned Justice of Peace had either been set aside by any court of law or the operation thereof, had been stayed. Mere contention of the respondents that already some F.I.R.
Had been registered on the statement of respondent No,5 is no ground to defy the direction of the learned Justice of Peace. Even if, already some case has been registered, there is no bar regarding registration of another F.I.R. Regarding the same occurrence.
7. This court is mindful of the fact that the legislature in its wisdom used the word "shall" in section 154, Cr.P.C, of course with an intention that this provision of law may not be used by the S.H.O. On his whims, forced by any of the extraneous considerations. Needful, to add that by use of word "shall", it stands included in one of the important duties of the Station House Officers, to reduce into writing the information, whenever it is received about the commission of a cognizable offence, and any attempt of deviation on the part of the concerned Station House Officer, may entail the consequences. In any way, it was incumbent upon the S.H.O. To have recorded the statement of the petitioner, in compliance with the direction of the learned Justice of Peace, he should have recorded the statements of the witnesses and then to proceed within the parameters of law. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, since already an F.I.R. Had been registered, instead of defying the subsequent direction of learned Justice of Peace, the proper course for the S.H.O. Was to register a separate case on the basis of written application/statement of the petitioner, which otherwise, fully contained all necessary ingredients about the commission of a cognizable offence. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case reported in "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN v.
THE STATE" (2011 SCM R 45).
8. Once appropriate directions are passed by the learned Justice of Peace, unless such directions are set aside or operation thereof is suspended by the court of law, the tendency of reluctance On the part of police hierarchy in obeying such directions of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace not only tantamount to nullify the intent behind insertion of section 22-A(6) in the Cr.P.C., purely meant to provide justice to the concerned at their door-step, but at the same time, this inaction is resulting in unwanted delay and is unnecessarily burdening the courts for petty issues.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that there exists no justifiable reason at all for the respondents/S.H.O. To have not implemented the direction of learned Justice of Peace. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this court would refrain itself from recommending any legal action against the delinquent S.H.O., instead a direction is issued to the respondent No,4/S.H.O., that if the aforementioned orders of learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace otherwise, still hold the field, he shall register an F.I.R. Against the culprits and then investigate the case strictly in accordance with law, with compliance report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
10. With above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.