M UHAM M AD ASIF, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 19.02.2025 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV Islamabad- East/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad-East, ("the trial Court") whereby the application under Section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is devoid of reasons and, therefore, does not qualify as a speaking order. It is further contended that the said order is patently unlawful, arbitrary, and contrary to both the facts of the case and the settled principles of law. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is aggrieved by the unlawful actions of the Station House Officer (SHO) and other police officials. It is beyond comprehension that the filing of a private complaint against the accused would serve any beneficial purpose for the petitioner, and thus, the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard is perverse and unsupported by reason. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to prima facie assess that the contents of the petitioner's complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. While dismissing the petition, the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual and technical aspects beyond the limited scope conferred upon it under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), which is confined solely to exercising powers as an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and not as a trial forum. The learned Court was not empowered to evaluate the veracity, authenticity, or correctness of the contents of the complaint at this preliminary stage. It is a settled legal position that under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the SHO is duty-bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) if the information disclosed constitutes a cognizable offence, irrespective of whether the information is ultimately found to be true or false. The refusal to register such an FIR constitutes a breach of mandatory legal duty, and the appropriate remedy would be an order directing the SHO to register the case. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C do not confer upon the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace any authority to hold an inquiry or assess the credibility of the information provided for the purpose of registration of an FIR. Nor do they empower such an authority to refuse or direct the non-registration of an FIR in contravention of Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, petition may be allowed.
4. The learned State counsel repelled the above submissions and argued that the Order impugned passed by the trial Court is a well-reasoned, and the SSP, Islamabad, has also submitted his report in the instant matter. As per the report, no cognizable offence has been made out, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner submitted a formal complaint before the Deputy Inspector General (Operations), Islamabad, alleging that on 28.12.2024, at about11:30 a.m., accused persons, including Imran Khan (armed with a 12-bore rifle), Asim Naseem, Amir Amin, and several unidentified accomplices, unlawfully attempted to dispossess the petitioner of his land.
Upon resistance, the petitioner was threatened at gunpoint by Imran Khan and was rescued by one Muhammad Imtiaz. Despite informing Police Helpline 15, the responding officers SI Fiaz Akbar and Constable Sultan failed to take legal action against the accused and instead unlawfully detained the petitioner while allowing the accused to take possession of the land. A subsequent call by the petitioner's son, Usman Matloob, alleging police collusion was similarly disregarded, and he too was unlawfully apprehended while the accused continued their illegal occupation. The Complainant further reveals that the SHO P.S. Phulgran, in collusion with SI Fiaz Akbar, misused their official positions to assist the accused, initiated malafide proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner's son, and detained an unrelated individual to lend false legitimacy to their actions. Despite video evidence and clear identification of the actual culprits, no legal action was taken, and the real accused remain at large.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the police inaction and alleged complicity, invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Justice of Peace and filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. which was dismissed with the following observations:- "4. It reveals that petitioner has filed the instant application for registration of FIR against the proposed accused. Besides the contents of the instant petition suggest that the matter was of a quarrel on land. Moreover, the comments of the SHO further suggests that no congnizable offence has been found in the instant matter and preventive action was also taken u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against both the parties. Furthermore, the report from SHO is received in negative which cannot be ignored. The stance of petitioner is self-contradictory and based on the concealment of fact.
Hence the cognizable offence is not spelled out."
8. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Complaints), Islamabad, reflects that upon hearing both the parties, it was brought on record that the proposed accused had allegedly purchased the land in question from one Naseem and others in the year 2017, and have been in peaceful possession thereof since that time. This version was further corroborated by the concerned Halqa Patwari. It has also been noted in the report that multiple FIRs have previously been registered against the petitioner at Police Stations Phulgran and Barakahu, Islamabad. As per report, no cognizable offence was made out, and therefore, the matter does not warrant the registration of an FIR.
9. Nothing has been placed on record, which may substantiate the petitioner's contention for the registration of an FIR, the report filed by the police, also emerges that no cognizable offence is made out from the facts and circumstances presented.
10. In view of the foregoing, no illegality or irregularity has been found in the Impugned Order.
Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.