' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 12.12.2014, passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,2248 of 2014 under sections 22-A and 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad instead of directing the SHO of Police Station, Husri to record his FIR against the proposed accused relating to the incident allegedly took place on 07.12.2014, disposed of his aforesaid, application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; directing the petitioner to file Direct Complaint vide impugned order dated 12.12.2014, passed by him, which, per him, is illegal. He, therefore, requests that the impugned order dated 22.12.2014, may be set-aside and an FIR may be ordered to be recorded.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General Sindh, supporting the impugned order dated 12.12.2014, passed by Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, requests that the petition may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sindh, and have gone through the material available on record.
5. The Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2014, disposed of the Application under sections 22-A and 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, filed by the petitioner in the following manner:- "Report received from concerned Police Station, which shows that on 07.12.2014, applicant appeared at PS and lodged NC report that the owner of shop issued him abuses and directed for vacate the shops and he has not disclosed the facts with regard cognizable offence:- ' Since, the parties are already disputed over the matter of shop as admittedly, the 'proposed accused No,1 is landlord and wants to get vacated the shop. As per report of concerned Police Station, on the day of incident, applicant appeared and not disclosed the facts with regard cognizable offence, therefore, his NC was lodged. Hence, applicant is set at liberty to avail the remedy of direct complaint, in which process will be issued against proposed accused at least on the satisfaction of Court about the commission of offence. Application disposed of accordingly."
6. On 21.11.2002 through Ordinance (CXXXI of 2002), subsection (6) was inserted in section 22-A of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which reads as under:- "(6) An Ex-Officio justice of the peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding;
(i) non-registration of a criminal case;
(ii) transfer of investigation from one police officer to another; and
(iii) neglect failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties."
7. From the above provisions of law, it would be seen that under Clause (i) of subsection (6) of section 22-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition, an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, on receiving a complaint regarding non-registration of a criminal case by the police officer, can issue appropriate directions to the concerned police to record the FIR, if cognizable offence is prima-facie found to have been committed.
8. There are two classes of criminal offences namely cognizable and non-cognizable, having been categorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The information relating to the commission of cognizable offence is dealt with under section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whereas the information relating to the commission of non-cognizable offence is dealt with under section 155(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. For the sake of convenience both the aforesaid provisions are reproduced here:- "154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police-station, shall be reduced .To writing by him 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 in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf "
"155. Information in non-cognizable cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in-charge of a police-station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in a book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the informant to the [Magistrate]."
9. Plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of law reveals that an officer in-charge of police-station is required to record an FIR in the relevant book kept at the police-station under section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if from the information given to him prima-facie a cognizable offence is made out and in case the information discloses a non-cognizable offence, the officer in-charge of police-station is required under section 155(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to enter substance of such information in the relevant book kept at the Police-station and refer the informant to the Magistrate and thus in both the cases namely cognizable offence or non- cognizable offence, the officer in-charge of police-station cannot refuse to enter information in the relevant book as the case may be.
10. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 12.12.2014, passed by Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, it would be seen that there is dispute between the parties over a shop; on 07.12.2014 the petitioner had laid an information before the police of Police Station, Husri, disclosing a non-cognizable offence, which was accordingly recorded as such in the relevant book i,e, station diary of the Police Station, Husri.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is conditional upon non-availability of the other adequate remedy.
12. Manifestly the matter is involving dispute between the parties over immovable property and the information laid by the petitioner before the concerned police, disclosing a non-cognizable offence was recorded in the relevant book at the police station concerned, and while passing the impugned order dated 12.12.2014, Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad had also set the applicant (petitioner) at liberty to avail the remedy of direct complaint.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to satisfy the Court on the maintainability of this petition.
14. Above are the reasons of short order dated 29.02.2016, whereby, this petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.