' HASAN FEROZ, J.---Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has impugned order dated 25-7-2013 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex. Officio Justice of Peace, Badin, whereby he dismissed the application of the Applicant filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of F.I.R. Against the proposed accused Mohib, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Ishaq, Muhammad Younis and Ali Ahmed.
2. Facts in nut shell of the case are that accused Mohib son of Muhammad Hussain Khoso in collusion with stamp vendor Muhammad Ashraf Mallah, Notary Public Muhammad Ishaq Yousufani, Muhammad Younis son of Muhammad Hanif and Ali Ahmed son of. Allah Ditto prepared bogus agreement for sale and presented the same before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Badin and committed forgery and cheating. It is further alleged that prior to preparation of this bogus document, the litigation is pending before the honourable High Court and F.I.R. Was also registered against said Muhammad Siddique, who was convicted by the learned trial Court, due to such forgery and cheating, the above said accused persons again prepared a bogus document without consent and knowledge of the applicant and presented before the Court of law. The Civil Revision filed by one Muhammad Siddique was decided in the year 2013. The applicant filed application under Illegal Dispossession Act for restoration of possession from said Muhammad Siddique which is still pending. The applicant after coming into knowledge of such bogus document, immediately approached the respondent No,1 to get register his F.I.R., but due to some unknown reasons, the respondent No,1 did not register the F.I.R. Of the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order was passed after conducting inquiry through concerned police station. He further contended that the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace has also gone into the factual inquiry and influenced by the police report coupled with the civil litigation pending between the parties, dismissed the aforementioned application. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case of MUHAMMAD BASHIR v. S.H.O. POLICE STATION OKARA CAN7T. And others (PLD 2007 SC 539).
4. Conversely learned A.P.G. As well as learned counsel for proposed accused contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is within his powers and he can decline to direct the police to register the F.I.R., if no cognizable offence has been made out.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record meticulously.
6. It appears from the record that the impugned order was passed after calling a report from the concerned police station and the pending civil litigation were also considered for declining to register the F.I.R.
7. I am of the view that section 154, Cr.P.C. Provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be recorded by him or under his direction and shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form, as the Provincial Government may prescribe in his behalf. It is now a well-settled principle of law that under section 154, Cr.P.C. a statutory duty has been cast upon the officer incharge of police station to enter information regarding commission of any cognizable offence in a register provided the said information/ complaint made 'a person from its contents constitute a cognizable offence, however, if the said information did not constitute cognizable offence, then such information be recorded in station dairy of police station under section 155, Cr.P.C.
8. Apparently, the powers under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Were given to the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to direct the Police Officers to record the statement in the register if a cognizable offence is made out. The powers exercised by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are administrative, which have been given to supervise and to aid the criminal justice system and are not of judicial nature but administrative and ministerial in nature, and while exercising such powers the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has to form his opinion whether a cognizable offence has been made out or not.
9. In the reported case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant it was held that Provision of Section 154, Cr.P.C. Command S.H.O. To lodge an F.I.R, if the information conveyed to him disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the information being correct or incorrect.
Undoing this wrong of non-registration of a criminal case would mean only an order to the S.H.O. To register the case. It was further held in the same judgment that the provisions of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Confer no additional powers on an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to hold any inquiry to assess the credibility of such an information communicated for the purpose in question nor do the said provisions give any extra authority to the said Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to refuse registration or order non-registration of the F.I.R. In violation of or beyond the mandatory requirement of section 154, Cr.P.C.
10. It appears that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in his order had in his conclusion that there is civil dispute between the parties in respect of agreement of sale, which E according to the applicant is fabricated document made by a third person after the first round of litigation between the applicant and other accused. I have in my consideration that the case reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1579, wherein it has been held that it would be in the interest of justice and for the benefit of the petitioner to lodge a private complaint for the redress of his grievance and it is only a Court of competent jurisdiction, who after recording the convincing evidence of the petitioner issue summons against the accused persons and if found them guilty can punish them in accordance with law. Further to the above citation the dictum of the superior Courts as cited by learned counsel for the applicant clearly spelt out that a cognizable offence is to be recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. By the S.H.O.
11. Keeping in view that the alleged agreement dated 9-4-2012 was used after the disposal of the first round of the suit being presented on 29-5-2013 whereas the earlier agreement between the parties was disposed of on 13-2-2013, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant would not fall within the ambit of 195, Cr.P.C. Although I am of the considered opinion that best course for the applicant is to secure ends of justice in his private complaint, however, the applicant cannot be impeded to seek relief under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Badin is set aside and remanded back to the learned Justice of Peace with directions to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after taking into consideration both the date of agreement(s) and conclusion of civil proceeding on the first agreement whereafter the second agreement allegedly fabricated came into field during the pendency of suit or at the conclusion thereof.
12. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-386 of 2013 stands disposed of in the above terms.