' SHAH KHAWAR, J.---The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2-4-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Burewala whereby on the application of respondent No,4 filed under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sahuka was directed to attend the grievance of the applicant/ respondent No,4 regarding the alleged occurrence strictly in acordance with law while keeping in view the spirit of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
2. The 'said order has been assailed by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner by respondent No,4 are totally false and fictitious and that respondent No,4 filed petition before learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace, Burewala for registration of case which is counterblast to the petition already filed by petitioner against respondent No,4 before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. Finally the petitioner has made prayer that order dated 2-4-2014 passed by respondent No,1 may be declared illegal, against law and facts and the same be set aside.
3. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable in law. The impugned order dated 2-4-2014 does not call for any interference as the same has been passed within tile four corners of the section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the powers conferred upon him in sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The said order could not be assailed on the assertion that the said application of respondent No,4 contained false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. If such contention is accepted then the object of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 would be frustrated.
4. For reference, section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is reproduced herein under:- "Section 154. Information in cognizable cases.
' Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officerincharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer is such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf."
5. When an information regarding cognizable offence is made before the Station House Officer either verbal or in writing, it is binding upon the Station House Officer to incorporate the same in the register kept in the police station for registration of F.I.R, The Station House. Officer could not sit over the information due to the reason that he may check the authenticity of the allegations. Such exercise would be in complete determent to the spirit of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The lodging of F.I.R. Is first and mandatory step to set the machinery under the Criminal Law into motion. After registration of F.I.R. If the police come to the conclusion that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are ill-founded and not supported by some cogent evidence, the police can even discharge the accused from the offence after getting concurrence from the concerned Magistrate.
6. I am guided by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the case reported as Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer and others (PLD 2007 SC 53). In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it is held that "there was no provision in any law, including the said section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C. Which authorized an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold an enquiry to assess the correctness or the falsity of the information received by him before complying with the command of the said provisions which obliged to reduce the same into writing irrespective of the fact whether such an information was true or otherwise". Again in paragraph No, 14, it has been held that "if the Station House Officer was given the authority to determine the truthfulness or the falsehood of the allegations levelled against someone and thereafter to decide to record or not to record such allegations as F.I.R., then such police officer would have got blessed with the power to decide about the guilt or innocence of an accused person. This was, however, far from the envisaged by the law-makers regarding, the identification and the consequent acquittal or conviction of accused persons as the said task stood assigned only to the Courts of law and had never been conceded to police officers".
7. In the present case, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, has rightly directed the Station House Officer to attend the grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged occurrence strictly in accordance with law by keeping in view the spirit of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
8. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in the contention made by the petitioner.
Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.