ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution), the petitioner has called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.02.2017 (the impugned order), passed by the Sessions Judge, Quetta in his capacity as of Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace (JoP), whereby the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under section 22- A(6), Cr.P.C. before respondent No,2 (Ex-Officio JoP) stating therein that his father was booked in case FIR No,2 of 2017, under sections 10(a), 16(2), 20(1), 24(c) and (d), PECA read with section 109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, FIA, Quetta, in consequence of such FIR and in pursuance of notice under section 160, Cr.P.C. he appeared before Muhammad Iqbal Kakar, Investigation Officer, FIA, who started beating him and also abused but later on released and further threatened for dire consequences. According to the petitioner that on 17.1.2017 he moved an application for his unlawful abduction and torture by the said Muhammad Iqbal, to Judicial Magistrate-II, Quetta, who referred him for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Quetta. In result whereof, the police surgeon issued MLC No,248/PS, according to which a cognizable offence was committed by Muhammad Iqbal Kakar, I.0, FIA, but the respondent refused to lodge FIR. On 19.1.2017, he (petitioner) again moved an application to Judicial Magistrate-II, Quetta for taking appropriate action against Muhammad Iqbal, which was forwarded to the respondent (SHO Police Station Jinnah Town) but he refused to receive the same. Resultantly, he (petitioner) moved an application under section 22- A(6), Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio JoP, who after calling for a report from the concerned police official dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 22.2.2017, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and law; that while passing the impugned order, the Ex-Officio JoP had badly failed to consider the contents of the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.; that the Ex-Officio JoP has failed to give sufficient grounds for dismissal of the application nor gave due consideration to the material before it; that sufficient reasons for registration of the FIR against Muhammad Iqbal were available but were not considered; thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with direction to the respondent No,1 to lodge FIR against Muhammad Iqbal Kakar.
4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by the Additional Prosecutor General opposed petition and supported the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.
Perusal of the record reveals that the FIA authorities registered a case against father of the petitioner and he (petitioner) was called by Muhammad Iqbal Investigating Officer through Notice under section 160, Cr.P.C. Now the stance of the petitioner is that when he appeared before the Investigating Officer, he (I.O.) started beating him severely and thereafter, he moved an application against I.O. before Judicial Magistrate-II, Quetta who referred him to Civil Hospital, Quetta for medical check-up. The application further reveals that the petitioner did not mention the date and time of the alleged incident, even he has failed to assign that on which part of his body sustained injuries.
6. In the instant case the record is silent about moving at first hand the SHO to perform statutory duty and without approaching the SHO concerned, the petitioner filed application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio JoP. Under the law, an aggrieved person is supposed to lay information of commission of cognizable offence before In-charge of Police Station and if he refuses or fails to receive such information, then doors of office of Ex-Officio JoP are to be knocked.
Prior to laying information before SHO concerned, remedy provided under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. cannot be availed. In this regard reference is made to the case of Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581), wherein it was held that: "The ex-officio Justice of the Peace, before issuance of a direction on a complaint for the non- registration of a criminal case under subsection (6) (i) of section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure must satisfy himself that sufficient material is available on the record, such as application to the concerned SHO for registration of the criminal case and on his refusal or reluctance, complaint to the higher police officers i,e, DPO RPO etc, to show that the aggrieved person, before invoking the powers of ex-officio Justice of the Peace had recourse to the high- ups in the police hierarchy. (underlining by us for emphasis) 8.We are mindful of the fact that under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., this Court is empowered to review or set aside an order passed under section 22-A. Cr.P.C., but such powers could only be exercised, if Ex-Officio JoP has not applied its judicial mind or has overlooked some material aspects of the case. When a well reasoned order has been passed. keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, then no interference is required by the High Court. In the instant case a well reasoned order passed in correct appreciation of the documents.
9. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court, therefore, we see not merit in this petition, which is dismissed.