2018 P Cr. L J 450
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, JJ
MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN--- Petitioner
Versus
The STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) POLICE STATION JINNAH TOWN,
QUETTA and another ---Respondents
C.P. No. 267 of 2017, decided on 22nd September, 2017.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 22- A & 22 -B---Application for registration of case to Ex -Officio Justice of Peace---
Dismissal of such application ---Record showed that a criminal case was registered agains t
father of applicant and he was called by Investigating Officer through notice under S. 160,
Cr.P.C.---Stance of applicant was that when he appeared before the Investigating Officer, he started beating him severely and thereafter, he moved an application against the Investigating Officer before Judicial Magistrate, who referred him to Civil Hospital for medical checkup ---
Contents of the said application revealed that the applicant did not mention date and time of the alleged incident, even he had failed to assign as to on which part of his body he sustained
injuries ---Applicant without approaching the SHO concerned had filed application under S. 22-
A, Cr.P.C. before the Ex -Officio Justice of Peace ---Circumstances established that applicant
failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference ---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others PLD 2016
SC 581 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Co de (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 22- A(6)(i) & 22 -B---Application for registration of case before Ex -officio Justice of
Peace---Scope ---Non-registration of criminal case ---Effect ---Aggrieved person was supposed
to lay information of commission of cognizable offenc e before SHO ---If the SHO refused or
failed to receive such information, then doors of office of Ex -officio Justice of Peace were to
be knocked---Prior to laying information before SHO concerned, remedy provided under Ss.
22-A & 22 -B, Cr.P.C. could not be availed.
Ehsan Rafiq Rana for Petitioner.
Mrs. Noor Jehan Kahoor, Additional P.- G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---Through the instant petition filed under Article 199
of the Constitution of Isla mic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution), the petitioner has
called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.02.2017 (the impugned order), passed by the Sessions Judge, Quetta in his capacity as of Ex -Officio Justice of the Pea ce (JoP),
whereby the application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under section
22-A(6), Cr.P.C. before respondent No.2 (Ex -Officio JoP) s tating therein that his father was
booked in case FIR No.2 of 2017, under sections 10(a), 16(2), 20(1), 24(c) and (d), PECA read with section 109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, FIA, Quetta, in consequence of such FIR and in pursuance of notice und er section 160, Cr.P.C. he appeared before Muhammad
Iqbal Kakar, Investigation Officer, FIA, who started beating him and also abused but later on released and further threatened for dire consequences. According to the petitioner that on 17.1.2017 he moved an application for his unlawful abduction and torture by the said
Muhammad Iqbal, to Judicial Magistrate -II, Quetta, who referred him for medical examination
to Civil Hospital, Quetta. In result whereof, the police surgeon issued MLC No.248/PS, according t o which a cognizable offence was committed by Muhammad Iqbal Kakar, I.O, FIA,
but the respondent refused to lodge FIR. On 19.1.2017, he (petitioner) again moved an
application to Judicial Magistrate -II, Quetta for taking appropriate action against Muhammad
Iqbal, which was forwarded to the respondent (SHO Police Station Jinnah Town) but he refused
to receive the same. Resultantly, he (petitioner) moved an application under section 22- A(6),
Cr.P.C. before the Ex Officio JoP, who after calling for a report fr om the concerned police
official dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 22.2.2017, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is contrary to the
facts and law; that while passing the impugned order, the Ex -Officio JoP had badly failed to
consider the contents of the application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C.; that the Ex -Officio JoP
has failed to give sufficient grounds for dismissal of the application nor gave due consideration to the material b efore it; that sufficient reasons for registration of the FIR against Muhammad
Iqbal were available but were not considered; thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with direction to the respondent No.1 to lodge FIR against Muhammad Iqbal Kakar.
4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by the Additional
Prosecutor General opposed petition and supported the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available
record. Perus al of the record reveals that the FIA authorities registered a case against father of
the petitioner and he (petitioner) was called by Muhammad Iqbal Investigating Officer through Notice under section 160, Cr.P.C. Now the stance of the petitioner is that w hen he appeared
before the Investigating Officer, he (I.O.) started beating him severely and thereafter, he moved an application against I.O. before Judicial Magistrate- II, Quetta who referred him to Civil
Hospital, Quetta for medical check -up. The applica tion further reveals that the petitioner did
not mention the date and time of the alleged incident, even he has failed to assign that on which
part of his body sustained injuries.
6. In the instant case the record is silent about moving at first hand the S HO to perform
statutory duty and without approaching the SHO concerned, the petitioner filed application
under section 22- A(6), Cr.P.C. before the Ex -Officio JoP. Under the law, an aggrieved person
is supposed to lay information of commission of cognizable offence before In -charge of Police
Station and if he refuses or fails to receive such information, then doors of office of Ex -Officio
JoP are to be knocked. Prior to laying information before SHO concerned, remedy provided
under section 22- A and B, Cr.P.C . cannot be availed. In this regard reference is made to the
case of Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others {PLD 2016 SC 581), wherein it was held that:
"The ex -officio Justice of the Peace, before issuance of a direction on a complaint for
the non- registration of a criminal case under subsection (6)(i) of section 22 -A, Code of
Criminal Procedure must satisfy himself that sufficient material is available on the record, such as application to the concerned SHO for registrati on of the criminal case
and on his refusal or reluctance, complaint to the higher police officers i.e. DPO RPO etc, to show that the aggrieved person, before invoking the powers of ex -officio Justice
of the Peace had recourse to the high -ups in the police hierarchy. (underlining by us for
emphasis)
7. 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 an order passed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., but such powe rs could only be exercised, if Ex -Officio JoP has not applied its
judicial mind or has overlooked some material aspects of the case. When a well reasoned order has been passed, keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case, then no interference is required by the High Court. In the instant case a well reasoned order passed in correct
appreciation of the documents.
8. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality
or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court, therefore, we see not
merit in this petition, which is dismissed.
JK/148/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.