MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 21.03.2025 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, ("Respondent No. 3") whereby the application filed by the Respondent No. 4/complainant has been allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 3 failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the case. It was argued that the principles governing the provisions of Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C. were misinterpreted by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. The counsel further contended that Respondent No. 4 had already registered four FIRs against the petitioner regarding the same subject matter and had filed three additional applications for the registration of FIRs on identical grounds. In light of this, Respondent No. 3 committed a legal error by directing Respondent No. 2 to register a fresh FIR, contrary to the spirit of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the jurisprudence established by the superior courts. It was also asserted that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to exercise independent judicial mind, particularly as the alleged compromise/agreement dated 25.01.2024 had not been implemented, leading to the recall of the petitioner's ad-interim bail. Moreover, the said agreement clearly indicates that no new cheque was issued by the petitioner; instead, the respondent misused previously issued cheques.
Additionally, the Justice of Peace ignored to consider the legal principle of novation, as a new compromise agreement was executed on 26.07.2024 by the petitioner's son-in-law, Saad Ansar.
Under this agreement, the respondent received a substantial amount on behalf of the petitioner, and a cheque for the remaining Rs. 5 million was issued by Saad Ansar, which was later dishonoured. The respondent had already initiated FIR No. 166/2025 at Police Station Shalimar in connection with this dishonoured cheque. Therefore, the petitioner holds no legal obligation to pay the said amount. It was finally submitted that the impugned Order suffers from misreading and non-consideration of the available record, therefore, liable to be set aside.
3. The learned State counsel repelled the above submissions and submitted that the Order passed by the learned trial court is well-reasoned, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that Respondent No. 4 invested Rs. 50 million with the petitioner in a structural steel business. The petitioner had committed to providing structural steel within two months but failed to honour his commitment. In lieu of repayment, the petitioner issued five cheques totalling Rs. 50 million, all of which were dishonoured upon presentation. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 lodged a criminal complaints against the petitioner. After the registration of multiple FIRs, the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail. During the pendency of the bail application, the parties reached a compromise and a new cheque was issued to Respondent No. 4. However, the compromise was not implemented, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's pre-arrest bail vide Order dated 01.04.2024. Later, the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 again reached a compromise, under which Rs. 1.7 million was returned through cash and a vehicle, wherein, two additional cheques for Rs. 3.3 million and Rs. 5 million were issued for the remaining amount. These cheques were also dishonoured. Respondent No. 4 then approached the Station House Officer
(SHO) of Police Station Shalimar for registration of an FIR, but the request was declined. He subsequently filed an application before the Illaqa Magistrate for directions to register the FIR, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR against the petitioner, which was allowed by Respondent No. 3/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace, with direction to Respondent No. 2 to proceed in accordance with the law.
6. The registration of a criminal case is an independent right of the aggrieved person because the officer in-charge of the Police Station is bound under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to record the report and has no other option but to record the statement of the complainant in the relevant register when the same discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and then proceed with investigation in accordance with law. Furthermore, the police officer is under a statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register. The report to be registered should fulfil two conditions (a) it should be an information, and (b) it should disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Reliance is placed upon the case of Mumtaz Hussain v. Deputy Inspector- General (PLD 2002 Lahore 78) and Hazoor Bakhsh v. Senior Superintendent of Police (PLD 1999 Lah. 417).
7. As per 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 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.