SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR,J- Applicant Allah Bakhsh has assailed the order dated 06th October.2012, whereby Application under Section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C was declined by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that the applicant alleged that proposed accused with intention to kill her sister on the basis of allegation of KARAP intruded in his house; attempted to abduct her, caused aerial firing and issued threats of dire consequences.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the applicant approached before Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki; report was called from the SHO, but his application was declined on the ground that SHO Mirpur Mathelo in his report, has stated that no such incident has taken place and the applicant has pleaded false facts to get false FIR registered against the proposed accused; thereby impugned order is illegal.
4. Conversely learned APG appearing for the State contends that the impugned order is according to law; applicant and proposed accused are related inter se and apparently there is matrimonial dispute between parties.
5. Since the applicant has tried to record his statement, for registration of case against the proposed accused regarding the attempt of abduction of his sister with intention to kill on KARAP allegation and causing aerial firing by the accused persons but his application was declined by the Justice of Peace on the ground that the SHO has opined that no offence was committed. It will be suffice to say that such course adopted by Justice of Peace is against the norms of settled principles. It is pertinent to mention here that recording of statement is mandatory right of every informant and in case informant makes out his case of a cognizable offence in that eventuality FIR should be lodged and investigation be carried out, and during investigation I.O can opine regarding truthfulness of the incident but even then such opinion is not binding upon a Magistrate while passing an order on a summary report, thus the impugned order is not maintainable.
6. Consequently, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.10.2012 is set aside.
The concerned SHO is hereby directed to record the statement of the applicant and if such statement reflects that ingredients of cognizable offense are evident, register the FIR against the proposed accused.