1. ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. Through this petition, petitioner Ahsan Khalid has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the concerned S.H.O. to record his statement about the cognizable offense, which has been objected to by the respondents initially.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
3. The Code classifies criminal offenses into two categories for certain purposes, namely cognizable and non-cognizable offenses. Sections 154 and 155(1), Cr.P.C. separately prescribe the procedure for dealing with them. If there is a piece of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, it falls under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a police officer is under a statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register. The condition precedent is simply two- fold: first, it must be information, and second, it must relate to a cognizable offense on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. A police officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him, or where the commission of an offense is reported to him orally, he is bound to take down the complaint. If he does not incorporate the complaint so made in the register, he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant; therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by his superior officers for neglect of duty. Thus, it does not depend on the sweet will of a police officer .who may or may not record it.
4. The Supreme Court in the cases of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt and others (PLD 2007 SC 539) and Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581) while dealing with powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. has held that until and unless due recourse is exercised within the police hierarchy for initiation of proceedings under Section 154, Cr.P.C. petition under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, because of guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the Judgment supra, the coda must function as Ex-officio Justice of Peace, before taking cognizance in the matter of an application under Sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C., to satisfy that the party has already approached the concerned quarter(s) meant for redressal of his grievance i.e. file application before SHO for registration of the case, which was registered under a proper diary and the inaction by the SHO was further agitated before the higher police hierarchy (Superintendent of Police) under due receipt but with no effect.
5. Both the parties have agreed to the disposal of the instant petition on the ground that the complainant will appear before the concerned SHO and will record his statement including the version of the respondent's side on the plea that a private complaint has already been registered under similar cause of action, which has now been dismissed. Let SHO record the statement of the complainant including the version of the respondent, and if he finds a case to be registered he may do in accordance with law.
6. The instant petition is disposed of in the above terms.