1. ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J. --- Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Additional. Sessions Judge-I, Quetta in his capacity as of Justice of the Peace "JoP" wherein it was directed to register a criminal case against the petitioner.
2. 2.According to the facts, as narrated in: the application filed by respondent No, 1 under Section 22- A of the Cr.P.C.. were that her daughter namely Shazia "deceased" was married with Naseer Ahmed (petitioner) about three year's ago and out of wedlock two children, were born; that the petitioner. and his brother Akbar maltreated the deceased; that on 31.10.2016, she was informed about the death of deceased due to heart attack; that the dead-body of her deceased daughter was taken to native town. Since the relation of the petitioner and his brother was not good with the deceased, therefore, she suspected that the petitioner . and his brother in furtherance of their common intention with Shoukat and Liaquat had ministered poison to Shazia which resulted in her death.
3. Thus, on 11..11.2016, she approached the respondent No, 2 for registration of F.I.R. but he refused, compelled her filing of the application under 'Section 22-A, Cr.P.C.
4. 3.. Though the report called from the SHO concerned about commission of suicide, the 'JoP allowed the application vide impugned order dated 29.11.2016 with the directions to the concerned local police for registration of the case hence this petition.
5. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was contrary to the facts and law that in mis-exercise of authority and jurisdiction, without going through the controversy existed between 'the parties.. regarding suicide, and even without 'issuing any notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to him that there was no direct or indirect evidence on- record which can connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence; that the deceased herself has taken poison and committed 'suicide, which fact is also apparent from the medical report of the deceased that there .are various illegalities, irregularities and improprieties, on the basis whereof as well the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside, 5.On the other hand, the learned APG as well as the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 vehemently opposed The petition and defended the impugned order.
6. 6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available.
7. From perusal of the record it appears that before the JoP, the SHO Jinnah Town submitted report dated 24.11.2014, which shows that the deceased committed suicide. The first and foremost question, which arises for determination in this Constitutional Petition is whether the deceased committed suicide, if so, then whether the concerned SHO conducted inquiry as envisaged in Section 174, Cr.P.C? Before proceeding further it would be necessary to reproduce the Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-- "174. Police on inquire on suicide, etc.</i> (1) The officer in charge of a police-station or some other police-officer specially empowered by the Provincial Government in that behalf. on receiving information that a person: (a)has committed suicide, or (b)has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by machinery, or by an accident, or (c)has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the Provincial Government, shall proceed in the place where the body of such deceased person is,' and there, in the presence of two or more . respectable inhabitants - of the neighborhood. shall make investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds fractures, bruises and other marks of inquiry as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any). such marks appear to have been inflicted.
8. (2)The, report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein and shall be forthwith forwarded to the concerned Magistrate.
9. (3)When there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or when for any other reason the police . officer considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. forward the body, with a view to its, being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or to her qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the Provincial Government. if the state of the weather and. the distance admit of its being so - forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
10. (4)Omitted by A.O., 1949 (5)The Magistrates of the' first class are empowered to hold inquests.
7. A look of the referred to provision reveals that on receipt of information the Police Officer in respect of suicide shall intimate it to nearest Magistrate having powers to hold inquiry and thereafter proceed to spot and investigate the matter in the presence of two or more respectable persons hails from the place and draw a report of apparent cause of death describing full details, mode and manner of commission of crime and weapon used and in case of doubt refer the dead- body with view to be examined by the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified doctor appointed by the Provincial Government. but perusal of the inquiry report reveals that the requirements of Section 174 of, the Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled in its letter and spirit because on receipt of information of the death of deceased, the concerned police officer neither intimated the Magistrate nor recorded the statements of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood, which is mandatory as per said Section, thus, the report submitted by the concerned police officer before the Jo is not in accordance with Section 174 of the. Cr P.0 8.We are mindful of the fact that under 'Article 199 of Constitution and Section 5617A of the Cr.P.C., this Court is empowered to review or set aside 'order passed under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C., but such power could only be exercised if Jo has not applied its judicial mind or has overlooked some material aspects of the case. When the lower Court has passed. a well-reasoned order; keeping in view the facts, and circumstances of the case, then no interference is required by the High Court: In them instant case the JoP passed a well-reasoned order, keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others {PLD 2007 SC 539}.
11. 9.For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition has no merits, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed.