M UHAM M AD ASIF J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 for registration of the FIR against the proposed accused/respondent No. 3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,600,000/- to respondent No. 3 for obtaining a Cyprus visa for his son, Adnan Khan. However, respondent No. 3 provided the petitioner with a fake and fraudulent visa along with a bogus air ticket. In 2011, respondent No. 3 refunded Rs. 700,000/- and assured the petitioner that the remaining amount would be returned soon. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 disappeared from his known address. The petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No. 1, but no action was taken. A second application was also submitted, but it yielded no result. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 3 received the payment for arranging a visa and work permit for the petitioner's son but instead issued forged documents. To date, Rs. 900,000/- remains unpaid, leading to the filing of the present petition.
3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted a report in response to the petitioner's complaint, stating that Kashif Imran, proprietor of M/s Federal Manpower Promoter, OEP, located at Office No. 307, Talha Heights, 6th Road, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, allegedly extorted a total amount of Rs. 1,600,000/- (Rs. 1,500,000/- in cash and Rs. 100,000/- via bank transfer) from the petitioner under the pretence of arranging overseas employment in Cyprus for his son, Adnan Khan. However, the petitioner was subsequently defrauded. During the inquiry, respondent No. 3, Kashif Imran, claimed that he only received Rs. 800,000/- from the petitioner for arranging work visas for Adnan Khan and a relative named Ishfaq. He further stated that due to the cancellation of the foreign demand, he was unable to fulfil his commitment and had refunded Rs. 799,700/- to the petitioner in 2010. Based on partial recovery and lack of sufficient evidence, the inquiry was closed twice by the competent authority, i.e., the Director FIA, Zone Islamabad, through letter No. 2155 dated 25.08.2023 and letter No. DIZ/S.O/AHTC-RWP/2025/754 dated 18.04.2025.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had paid Rs. 1600000/- to respondent No. 3 to obtain a Cyprus visa for his son. Respondent No. 3 failed to fulfil his commitment and refunded the petitioner Rs. 700,000/-. However, as per the report submitted by the respondent No. 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 obtained Rs. 800000/- from the petitioner for a Cyprus visa for his son Adnan Khan and his relative Ishaq. However, due to the non-fulfilment of his commitment, he returned Rs.
799700/- to the petitioner through the banking channel.
7. Whenever a Justice of the Peace is seized of a complaint under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C., the principles and procedures outlined in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. become applicable. The Justice of the Peace must exercise a prudent mind to determine whether the facts disclosed constitute a cognizable offence. If it is concluded that a cognizable offence has been committed, the Justice of the Peace is bound to direct the local police of the concerned station--within whose jurisdiction the offence occurred--to register the case by lodging an FIR under the relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case.
8. In light of Section 154 Cr.P.C., the Officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to record information regarding a cognizable offence in the prescribed register, previously known as the First Information Report (FIR). The mere registration of an FIR does not, in any manner, limit the authority of the investigating Officer to probe the veracity of the information provided. If, during the investigation, the Officer concludes that the allegations against the accused are false, concocted, or baseless, and no supporting evidence is found, the Officer may lawfully recommend the release of the accused under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and place the accused's name in Column No. 2 of the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., thereby suggesting discharge from the charges.
However, it must be emphasized that neither the Officer Incharge nor any other authority has the discretion to refuse to reduce into writing any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence in the register maintained under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove his case for registration of FIR therefore, the respondents No. 1 and 2/Federal Investigation Agency closed the enquiry proceedings due to partial recovery and lack of sufficient evidence for registration of FIR, and on the same grounds, the learned trial Court also dismissed the application of the complainant for registration of FIR under Section 22-A Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the foregoing, no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.