' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Muhammad Tayyab, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan, whereby registration of a case was ordered against him, on an application moved under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. By Mst. Amna Mai.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, respondent No.1 was not to act as a post office. He was supposed to apply his independent mind to the complaint made by Mst. Amna Mai. According to him, each and every application made to respondent No.1 is to be dealt with on its own merits instead of passing stereotype orders. He argues that respondent No.1 was under an obligation to determine as to whether the complaint made to him, prima facie constituted a cognizable offence or not. He points out that the complainant is 50-years old woman and a mother of 11/12 children, while the petitioner is only a lad of 1.6 years. He wonders as to how a young man of 16 could subject a woman of advanced years to illicit intercourse, as was alleged by Mst. Amna Mai. He makes the argument that the Medico-legal Certificate of Mst. Amna Mai does not corroborate her stance that the petitioner and his co- accused forcibly committed rape upon her. Last but not least, without the DNA test, it would be dangerous to book the petitioner in a heinous offence puniihable with life imprisonment.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently opposes this petition. He submits that it has not been shown as to how the impugned order is either illegal or was passed without jurisdiction. He advances the argument that under section 154, Cr.P.C., the police are duty bound to register a case in the event of a complaint made to it, which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. He further argues that no woman would involve herself with an offence, which besmirches and maligns her's and her family's reputation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/complainant adopts the arguments made by the learned Law Officer. In addition, he points out that Mst. Amna Mai, the prosecutrix was examined only after an order was passed by the Area Magistrate for her examination, and even so, the police did not discharge its duty to register a case against the petitioner. He concludes his arguments by making the submission that the petitioner was involved by Mst. Amna Mai in so many words, and he stands out among the accused. There was no scope of mistaken identity in that the petitioner is a neighbour of the prosecutrix.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.
6. Before dealing with the arguments made by the learned counsel, I am tempted to make reference to the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as 2014 SCM R 83. In paragraph 15 of this judgment, it was held as under:-- "Case should have been registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. When matter was reported, the police administration is bound to follow the dictate of law, which has been A explained by this Court time and again. Reference may be made to the following paras of the judgment in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer; Okara Cantt. (PLD 2007 SC 539):-
27. The conclusions that we draw from the above, rather lengthy discussion, on the subject of FIR, are as under:--
(a) No authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or with anyone else to refuse to record an FIR where the information conveyed, disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
(b) no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a Police Station or with anyone else to hold any inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which is conveyed to the SHO for the purposes of recording of an FIR.
(c) any FIR registered after such an exercise i.e. Determination of the truth or falsity of the information conveyed to the SHO, would get hit by the provisions of section 162, Cr .P.0 .
(d) existence of an FIR is no condition precedent for holding of an investigation nor is the same a prerequisite for the arrest of a person concerned with, the commission of a cognizable offence;
(e) nor does the recording of an FIR mean that the SHO or a police officer deputed by him was obliged to investigate the case or to go through the whole length of investigation of the case mentioned therein or that any accused person nominated therein must be arrested; and finally that
(f) the check against lodging of false FIRs was not refusal to record such FIRs, but punishment of such informants under section 182, P.P.C. Etc. Which should be, if enforced, a fairly deterrent against misuse of the provisions of section 154, Cr .P.0 . "
7. All the arguments made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3/ complainant deal with various aspects of the case, which is yet to be registered. There might be merit in his arguments, but the registration and investigation of the case cannot be forestalled and stopped on these premises. As for his argument that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, respondent No.1 is not supposed to pass an order in a mechanical manner, I cannot agree with him more, but a perusal of the impugned order dated 29.1.2014 shows that respondent No.1 did apply his mind to the complaint made to him under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. To him, prima facie, a cognizable offence was disclosed by the allegations made by the applicant. In the circumstances, he exercised the authority vesting in him under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. By ordering the SHO concerned to register a case on the complaint made by Mst. Amna Mai.
8. This brings me to the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DNA test is fail-safe one in cases in which there is an allegation of rape. As spelt out herein above, all the investigation including a DNA test is to follow the registration of the case, and under no circumstances can it precede the registration of the case nor can the registration of the case be deferred or made contingent upon the positive report of DNA test.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has not been able to bring out any illegality in the impugned order dated 29.1.2014 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan. The same having been passed with jurisdiction, it is unexceptionable, calling for no interference of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.