2017 M L D 2068
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, JJ
NASEER AHMED--- Petitioner
Versus
KHAIR BIBI and 3 others ---Respondents
C.P. No.1083 of 2016, decided on 10th May, 2017. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 22- A & 22 -B---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Application for registration
of case against petitioner for the murder of daughter of respondent was accepted by Ex -Officio
Justice of Peace ---Contentions of petitioner was that no evidence was available on record,
which could connect him with the commission of alleged offence; that deceased lady herself
had taken poison and committed suicide, and that impugned order was liable to be set aside ---
Validity ---Record transpired that SHO concerned submitted report before the Justice of Peace,
which showed that the deceased committed suicide ---Police Officer on receipt of intimation in
respect of suicide should have intimated the matter to the Magistrate empowered to hold inquiry
as required by S.174, Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceeded to the spot and investigate the matter in
the presence of two or more respectable persons from the place and draw a report of apparent cause of death describing full details, mode and manner of commission of crime and weapon
used---Police Officer, in case of doubt was to refer the dead body for examination by the Civil
Surgeon ---Inquiry report showed that said requirements of S. 174, Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled
which were mandatory as pe r law ---Circumstances established that Justice of Peace had passed
a well reasoned order, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, thus no interference was required by the High Court ---Constitutional petition was dismissed
accordingly.
Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt: and others PLD 2007 SC
539 rel.
Tahir Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Miss. Shakar Bibi for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Noor Jehan Khaoor, Additional PG for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th April, 2017.
JUDGM ENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---Through the instant petition filed under Article 199
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question
the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Quetta in his capacity as of Justice of the Peace "JoP", whereby it was directed to
register a criminal case against the petitioner.
2. According to the facts, as narrated in the application filed by respondent No.1 under
Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. were that her daughter namely Shazia "deceased" was married with
Naseer Ahmed (petitioner) about three years ago and out of wedlock two children were born; that the petitioner and his brother Akbar maltreated the deceased; that on 31.10.2016, she was informed about the death of deceased due to heart attack; that the dead body of her deceased daughter was taken to native town. Since the relation of the petitioner and his brother was not good with the deceased, therefore, she suspected tha t the petitioner and his brother in
furtherance of their common intention with Shoukat and Liaquat had administered poison to Shazia, which resulted in her death. Thus, on 11.11.2016, she approached the respondent No.2 for registration of FIR but he refuse d, compelled her filing of the application under section 22-
A, Cr.P.C.
3. Though the report called from the SHO concerned about commission of suicide, the
JoP allowed the application vide impugned order dated 29.11.2016 with the directions to the
concerned local police for registration of the case, hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was contrary to
the facts and law; that in mis -exercise of authority and jurisdiction, without going through the
controversy existed between the parties regarding suicide, and even without issuing any notice
or providing any opportunity of hearing to him; that there was no direct or indirect evidence on record which can connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence; that the
deceased herself has taken poison and committed suicide, which fact is also apparent from the medical report of the deceased; that there are various illegalities, irregularities and improprieties, on the basis whereof as well the impugne d order is not sustainable and liable to
be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned APG as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1
vehemently opposed the petition and defended the impugned order.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
available. From perusal of the record it appears that before the JoP, the SHO Jinnah Town submitted report dated 24.11.2014, which shows that the deceased committed suicide. The first and foremost question, which aris es for determination in this Constitutional Petition is whether
the deceased committed suicide, if so, then whether the concerned SHO conducted inquiry as envisaged in section 174, Cr.P.C.? Before proceeding further it would be necessary to reproduced the section 174 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under: --
"174. Police to inquire on suicide, etc .---(1) The officer incharge of a police station
or some other police -officer specifically empowered by the Provincial Government in
that behalf, on receiving inform ation that a person.
(a) has committed suicide, or
(b) has been killed by another, or by an animal or by machinery, or by an accident,
or
(c) has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other
person has committed an offence.
shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the Provincial Government, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person i s, and
there , in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood, shall make investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds fractures, bruises and other marks of inquiry as may be found on the body, and
stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so
many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthw ith forwarded to the concerned
Magistrate.
(3) When there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or when for any other
reason the police officer considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a
view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or to her qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the Provincial Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
(4) Omitted by A.O. 1949
(5) The Magistrates of the first class are empowered to hold inquests.
7. A look of the referred to provision reveals that on receipt of information the Police
Officer in respect of suicide shall intimate it to nearest Magistrate having powers to hold
inquiry and thereafter proceed to spot and investigate the matter in the presence of two or more respectable persons hails from the place and draw a report of apparent cause of death describing full details, mode and manner of commission of crime and weapon used and in case of doubt refer the dead body with view to be examined by the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified doctor appointed b y the Provincial Government, but perusal of the inquiry report reveals that
the requirements of section 174 of the Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled in its letter and spirit because on receipt of information of the death of deceased, the concerned police officer neither intimated the Magistrate nor recorded the statements of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood, which is mandatory as per said section, thus, the report submitted by the
concerned police officer before the JoP is/not in accordance with section 174 of the Cr.P.C.
8. We are mindful of the fact that under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 561-
A of the Cr.P.C., this Court is empowered to review or set aside order passed under Section
22-A of the Cr.P.C., but such power could only be exercised, if JoP has not applied its judicial
mind or has overlooked some material aspects of the case. When the lower Court has passed a well reasoned order, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, then no interference is required by the High Court. In the instant case the JoP passed a well reasoned
order, keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt: and others {PLD 2007 SC 539}.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition has no merits, therefore, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
JK/89/Bal Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.