By means of instant Intra Court Appeal filed in terms of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the appellant has assailed the vires of impugned order dated 27.10.2015; whereby Crl Org. No. 879-W/2015fded by him seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent/SHO for flouting the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6560/2015 was dismissed.
2 At the very outset the appellant present in person submits that the impugned order has been passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber in derogation to material available on record. Main crux of arguments of the appellant is that bare perusal of application filed by him discloses that the proposed accused stole away personal and professional articles of the appellant. Next submits that while taking into consideration the contents of the application of the appellant, learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace passed direction to the SHO to register the case. Appellant vehemently contends that the occurrence pertains to the year 2015; however, despite of the fact that respondent/SHO gave undertaking for complying with the order of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which fact has been incorporated in the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6560/2015, he has flouted the order, which aspect of the case escaped notice of the learned Single Bench. He prays for an appropriate order/direction in the circumstances.
3. On the other hand learned AAG vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the appellant. He contends that the application of the appellant filed before SHO was probed, however, its contents were found to be fake/frivolous as such while completing all requisite legal formalities, proceedings under Article 24(4) of Police Rules, 1934, were carried out, which fact also finds mention in the relevant register maintained at Police Station. Learned Law Officer contends that while taking into consideration this aspect learned Single Judge in Chamber rightly dismissed contempt petition of the appellant, hence, the instant ICA is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf .of both sides and gone through the record available on file.
5. Record available on file reflects that the appellant moved an application before the SHO/respondent thereby leveling the allegation of stealing certain articles (bags, Court files, etc.) against the proposed accused. Subsequently upon his petition filed in terms of Section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed the SHO to proceed in accordance with law. The application of the appellant was probed, however, its contents were found false as such proceedings under Article 24(4) of Police Rules, 1934, were carried out, which fact, stands also incorporated in the relevant register maintained at the concerned Police Station. According to Article 24(4) of Police Rules, 1934 it is the duty of the every Station House Officer to probe the contents of application filed before him, even it is found to be doubted and record its proceedings in the relevant register. Guidance in this regard is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), relevant extract out of which is reproduced as under: "According to Article 4(1) (j) of the Police. Order, 2002 it is a duty of every police officer to "apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist.
"Rules 24.1, 24.4 and 24.7 of the Police Rules, .1934 (which are still in vogue due to the provisions of Article 185 of the Police Order, 2002) clearly contemplate situations where an information received by the police regarding commission of a cognizable offence may be doubted or even found false."
When the proceedings carried out by the respondent/SHO are evaluated on the touchstone of guidelines given by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment cited (supra) we are of the considered view that he proceeded in the matter in accordance with law and no violation of any order as alleged by the appellant was committed, hence, learned Single Judge rightly dism issed the contempt petition. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality floating on record compelling us to interfere in the impugned order . The instant Intra Court Appeal is squarely devoid of legal justification, which is accordingly dismissed.