' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Through this application, the applicant has called into question the impugned order dated 27-10-2011, whereby the application filed by him under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. For registration of the FIR against the proposed accused was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Ghotki.
2. The relevant facts of the case narrated by the applicant are that on 24-9-2011 at about 5-30 a.m.
He along with his family members was present in his house where SHO Niaz Ahmed Mirani, Muhammad Nawaz Dharejo, Behram Bhutto in charge Society, PC Nazir Ahmed Khoso along with unknown police officials entered without any complaint against him. They maltreated the ladies of the applicant and conducted search of the house but nothing incriminating was recovered from them, thereafter they took away household articles viz. 30 munds of wheat, 3 goats of different colors and male goats of black color, their sheeps one male goat of the black color, one she male goat of brown color, one she male goat of white brown, one she male goat of red color, one she male bald, black singe, one she male goat, one male goat red color, one small goat red color, one Mobile of china company, one battery of AGS, one tape recorder, 3 tolas gold, 15 pairs of ladies cloth and cash of Rs, 42,000. Apart from above, they arrested the applicant, his brother and other relatives. On their hue and cries the villagers namely Abdul Razak Kalhoro and Hussain Bux Ruk and others came over the spot and in presence of whom the applicant asked the police officials as to why they had arrested them and taken the household articles. The police officials replied that they under the orders of Minister of Irrigation had arrested them, thereafter the applicant and co- villagers beseeched the police officials on the name of Almighty ALLAH but the police malafidely arrested the applicant and took away his household articles without any rhyme and reason.
3. It is further alleged that later on the applicant continuously approached the proposed accused to get back his robbed articles but he was kept on false hopes and was directed ultimately by the accused to see the Irrigation Minister and seek his forgiveness, only then he would be returned back his articles. Having failed, the applicant approached the police officials for the registration of FIR but to no avail, hence he filed the application for the registration of the FIR before the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Ghotki but the same was also dismissed vide impugned order.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicant filed the instant application.
5, Learned counsel has argued that it is the duty of the SHO that if any information disclosing the commission of the cognizable offence is brought before him, he shall enter it into a book kept under section 154, Cr.P.C. He further contended that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law as the learned Justice of Peace has not considered that it is the right of the person, who has some information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, to get the FIR registered, which cannot be denied to him because the commission of any cognizable offence cannot be allowed to go unnoticed and unpunsihed. Per learned counsel there are checks and balances under the law which provide various safeguards against the false implication therefore if the information forwarded by the applicant is ultimately found false during the investigation, an action stipulated under the law can be taken against him. He further contended that since he had arrayed the police officials as the accused in his application before the Justice of Peace, hence the older for the registration of the FIR against them was not passed. He further submitted that the SHO concerned may be directed to record the statement of the applicant and in case it shows the commission of a cognizable offence, he should register the FIR against the proposed accused.
6. Learned APG has filed the statement of SHO along with the copies of two FIRs bearing Crime Nos.
138 of 2011 and 140 of 2011 of P.S. Adilpur District Ghotki which, he disclosed, are registered against the close relatives of the applicant who were arrested by the proposed accused in the above FIRs, Per learned APG the applicant has filed this frivolous application against the police officials to settle score with them. Learned APG has further contended that the equally efficacious remedy under section 200, Cr.P.C. Is provided to the applicant but surprisingly for the last three years he has not availed of such recourse. He further stated that the impugned order was passed in the month of October 2011 since then the applicant has not taken any interest to proceed with the matter which is evident from the order sheet which reflects that after filing of the instant application in September 2011, the counsel for the applicant has put up his appearance for the first time today.
Per learned A.P.G, the failure of the applicant to get his grievance redressed by filing the direct complaint against the police officials for the last 3 years is not understandable which depicts that the applicant by hook or by crook wants to get the FIR registered against them, who while acting officially in pursuance of the above FIRs had arrested his close relatives. He lastly prayed for the dismissal of the application.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. There is no cavil to the proposition that the courts can pass orders for the registration of the FIR on the complaint, regarding non-registration of a criminal case, in terms of section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. In the capacity of Justice of Peace, if the facts and circumstances in a given situation justify so. Nonetheless, the court is not supposed to conduct itself in a mechanical manner and issue such directions without applying its judicial mind to determine as to whether the applicant has appeared before it with clean hands having some genuine grievance which needs an immediate attention for its redressal or he has come in the court with a certain design to wreak havoc on his opponents by lodging an FIR against them. The Court has to distinguish between an effort aimed at a palpable false implication to take revenge from the opponents and a bona fide complaint concerning the refusal of the Station House Officer to record the statement in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. By looking into the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case before issuing directions for the registration of the F.I.R. The filing of the application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. And consequent orders thereon for the registration of the FIR cannot be equated with an automatic procedure which has to go by mechanically without there being a judicial approach to the matter by the courts, for the courts are not expected to act as the post office meant to stamp such application and forward it to the SHO concerned to register the FIR. The purpose behind enacting such piece of legislation viz. 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Definitely would not be to grant a license to the people to cause harassm ent to the innocent persons or to those who while in line of their duty take action against them, by invoking the provisions under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. For reliance the case of Imtiaz Ahmed Cheema, SHO v. SHO Police Station Dharki ghotki and 2 others reported in 2010 YLR 189 can be cited.
"I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The provisions of section 22-A, Cr.P.C.
Have been misused in a number of cases. The wisdom of legislature was not that any person who in discharging of duties takes an action against the accused would be subjected to harassment by invoking provision of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The Courts in mechanical manner should to allow application under sections 22-A and B and should apply its mind as to whether the applicant has approached the Court with clean hands or it is tainted with malice. Unless such practice is discharged, it would have far reaching effect on the police officials who in discharge of duties take actions against them. The law has to be interpreted in a manner that its protection extends to everyone."
8. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that the close relatives of the applicant were involved in various criminal cases against whom the aforementioned FIRs are registered and in pursuance whereof they were arrested and sent up for the trial by the proposed accused. The persistence of the applicant to get his FIR registered since 2011 against the police officials without having recourse to a private complaint depicts that he is only interested to see a criminal case registered against the proposed accused through an FIR. In the wake of the fact that the applicant is seeking directions of the registration of the FIR against the police officials, it would not be out of place to state here that the most efficacious remedy for him would be to file a private complaint against them as this court even after directing the registration of a criminal case cannot control and regulate the investigation against them. High Court of Lahore in a case of Asma Jahangir, Chairperson Human Rights Commission or Pakistan v. Senior Superintendent, of Police (Operation), Lahore and 3 others reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1517 also expressed such view. On a query, the learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfy as to why so far the applicant has not availed the remedy available to him under section 200, Cr.P.C. He 'simply replied that the direct complaint is not a prompt and efficacious remedy, which, however, cannot be agreed to as the private complaint is equally efficacious remedy. Under the similar circumstances the honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a Criminal Petition No, 54-K of 2014 in a case of Shadi Khan, v. SSP Naushehro Feroz and others has been pleased to observe in para No.5 of the order dated 5-5-2014 as under:-- "We have enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner that why the petitioner has not chosen to file a criminal complaint, in such like circumstances, when there are criminal proceedings between the parties. His reply was simple that a private complaint is not an effective remedy and therefore the petitioner has chosen to proceed under 22-A, Cr.P.C. And 491, Cr.P.C. We are not persuaded by the contention of the learned counsel. A private complaint has sanctity of law and effective remedy and ought to be resorted to particularly when the petitioner has reservations against police. The reasoning for dismissal of the petitioner's proceedings in the impugned judgment is appropriate and does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed."
9. After having sought the guidance from the above scholarly observation of the honourable Supreme Court and discussing the case of the applicant as above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 27-10-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Ghotki.
Resultantly the application is dismissed. The applicant however, may approach the appropriate forum through a private complaint for redressal of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law.