' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Samina Bukhari, Incharge Complaint Cell, SP Office, Haripur (petitioner), is aggrieved of the order dated 30.10.2015 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/ Justice of Peace, Haripur (respondent No,2), and has therefore, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for quashment of the impugned order, whereby, respondent No,2 directed SHO Police Station City, Haripur (respondent No,3), to register case under relevant penal provision in the light of contents of the petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. By Muhammad Javed Abbasi (respondent No,1).
2. The background of the case, briefly, stated is that petitioner is In-charge Complaint Cell, SP Office, Haripur, while respondent No,1 is Bureau Chief, K2 Times and Host of K2 TV, District Haripur. On the report of the petitioner, a case under sections 506, 511, 500, 501, 509, 186, P.P.C. And section 25, Telegraph Act was registered against respondent No,1 for criminal intimidation, defamation and other related offences like publication of scandalous and malicious news items in the Newspaper,.
In Police Station City, Haripur, vide FIR No,589 dated 30.06.2015. The petitioner also lodged a civil suit for damages on account of defamation against respondent No,1 and management of Daily Times K2, Abbottabad. Respondent No,1 also filed application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of case against the petitioner and other concerned police officers of District Haripur under sections 337-L, 342, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. On the grounds of his illegal confinement and subjecting him to physical violence and torture in the case vide FIR No,589. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Justice of Peace, Haripur, after perusal of comments of the SHO and hearing arguments, issued directions vide order dated 30.10.2015, which is impugned herein.
3. Arguments of Mr. Fazal-i-Haq Abbasi, ASC for the petitioner, Mr. Abdul Saboor Khan, Advocate for respondent No,1 and Mr. Muhammad Naeem Abbasi, Additional Advocate General, for rest of the respondents heard, and record perused.
4. The main focus of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was nature of offences alleged against the petitioner, as, according to the learned counsel, section 342 was not attracted to the case as respondent No,1 was not wrongfully confined, rather arrested by the police in the criminal case registered against him vide FIR No,589, and offence under section 337-L(2) was non- cognizable and the allegations in the petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Did not warrant the application of 337-L(1). The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved against seven persons including the petitioner with no specific allegation of commission of the offences against any one of them. The main concern of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that it has now become a common practice that immediately after registration of the FIR the police arrests the accused named in the FIR without first holding investigation/probe/inquiry in order to ascertain whether allegations against the accused were based on facts or otherwise.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No,1, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner, being a police officer, had full support of the local police of Haripur, who subjected respondent No,1 to inhuman treatment after registration of a false case against him on the report of petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel particularly referred to the report of Medical Officer on the direction of Judicial Magistrate, whereby clear signs of assault and physical violence on respondent No,1 were found, and in the opinion of the Medical Officer, respondent No,1 was brutally assaulted.
6. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II/Justice of Peace that "it is yet to be looked into as to who are the culprits in case the allegation of commission of offence is found correct during investigation", notwithstanding, the apprehensions of the petitioner about her arrest immediately after registration of FIR and resultant harassment and humiliation without first investigation/ inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the report and also into her guilt are, nevertheless, not ill-founded in view of practice in vogue in police department largely owing to misperception prevailing in the police about the powers and duty of the police under the relevant provisions of law. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate to reproduce the relevant sections of Cr.P.C., which are as follows:- "22-A-Powers of Justice of the Peace:- (1)
(2)............................................
(3)
(4)
(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 criminal case;
54. When police may arrest without warrant. (1) A police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest: ' Firstly, any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned;
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 or 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].
157. Procedure where cognizable offence suspected. (1) If, from information received or otherwise an officer in-charge of a police-station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police-report, and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender"
' A bare perusal of the above provisions of law would show that in the first place an ex-officio Justice of the Peace is empowered to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case; which. Indeed, could be either under section 154 in a cognizable case leading to registration of FIR or investigation/inquiry under section 157, Cr.P.C. Prior to registration of FIR under section 154, Cr.P.C.; but only in case when there is mere suspicion of commission of a cognizable offence. The procedure adopted by the police in such a case, ordinarily, is to enter the report in the daily diary of the police station; and then convert the same into FIR if after investigation/inquiry under section 157, Cr.P.C., the police arrive at the conclusion that cognizable offence did take place. However, in either of the cases, and even in a case of cognizable offence, the law vests an absolute discretion in a police officer under section 54, Cr.P.C. To arrest a person accused of commission of a cognizable offence without a warrant or, conversely, dispense with arrest of such a person; which, in any case, is not an essential pre-requisite for conduct of investigation into a cognizable case under section 156, Cr.P.C. Or into a case where cognizable offence is only suspected, under section 157, Cr.P.C.
7. Adverting to the merits of this case, in the light of aforementioned provisions of law, the allegations and counter allegations of the parties against each other in view of their visible acrimonious relations certainly need prior probe/inquiry before the opposite party is put to undue hardships. Moreover, though making an observation with regard to contents of the petition under section 22, Cr.P.C. Constituting an offence of assault, torture, abuse of authority, in his impugned order dated 30.10.2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Justice of the Peace, Haripur, stopped short of issuance of a direction for registration of FIR under the sections of law mentioned in the petition and left the scope open for investigation while making observation that "it is yet to be looked into as to who are the culprits in case the allegation of commission of offence is found correct during investigation".
8. Therefore, no illegality or legal infirmity is discernible from the impugned order of the learned Justice of the Peace to warrant interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. However, we feel constrained, in view of the above quoted provisions of law, to observe that it is not incumbent upon the police to embark on the B harassment and arrest of a person against whom even allegation of commission of a cognizable offence is leveled, simply because that is neither the requirement of law nor a sine qua non for a just and fair investigation. We may further observe that every civil/government servant, especially those enjoying the powers of curtailing the liberty and freedom of citizens, to invariably act in accordance with the ' letter and spirit of the constitution and laws of the country, besides conducting themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner not only to uphold rule of law but also to maintain harmony in the society in the interest of peace and law and order; which are, indeed, desperate need of the hour.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.