2025 Y L R 1421
[Balochistan]
Before Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
SAMIULLAH ---Petitioner
Versus
SHO POLICE STATION AIRPORT QUETTA and 3 others ---Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 1020 of 2023, decided on 28th August, 2023.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 22 -A, 22 -B & 561 -A---Application filed before the Ex- officio Justice of Peace for
registration of FIR ---Scope ---Record showed that complainant lodged FIR for the
offences under Ss.324, 337- AD & 34, P.P.C contending therein that the petitioner fired
upon him, whereby he received firearm injury on his leg---Complainant further alleged
that petitioner and his brother also made assault upon him and his guest ---Petitioner also
received an incised wound as well as several bruises, whereafter he made an attempt to get lodged FIR before SHO but on failure to do so he resorted to file an application under S.22- A, Cr.P.C, before Ex- officio Justice of Peace for the registration of FIR
against the complainant but could not succeed as his application was declined ---Validity --
-Regarding an incident two FIRs could not be registered, however, the counter version of
the adversarial party could be brought on record, including oral and documentary evidence---While declining an application filed under S.22- A, Cr.P.C, the Ex- officio
Justice of Peace besides other facts mainly had to see as to whether the facts and circumstances constituted a cognizable offence or otherwise---In the peculiar circumstances of a case, if no cognizable offence was constituted then the Ex -officio
Justice of Peace had ample power to decline the registration of the case, however, the Investigating Officer shall be obliged to bring on record atleast the defence of the accused in order to reach to the just conclusion---On failure to get registered the FIR, the complainant might resort to the alternate remedy by filing a private complaint as contemplated under S.200, Cr.P.C ---Facts and circumstances as well as the MLC of the
petitioner showed that injuries prima facie squared under the offence of S.337- A(i),
P.P.C, which was not a cognizable offence ---Thus, the decision made by the Ex- officio
Justice of Peace was justified, suffering from no error of law and fact ---Petition being
devoid of was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst. Sughra Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.
Manzoor Ahmed Kakar for Petitioner.
Muhammad Naeem Kakar, assisted by Masood Ahmed, SI/SHO and Tariq Mehmood
SI/ASHO PS Airport, Quetta for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th August, 2023.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The petitioner has put in the captioned
constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which carries the following relief;
"i. The impugned inquiry report and order dated 22.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions -V/Ex -officio justice of peace, may kindly be set aside.
ii. Direct the respondent No.1 to lodge FIR of the petitioner under the relevant provision of law or bring on record cross version against the accused persons, conduct fair, impartial and proper investigation into the matter and challan be submitted against them before the competent Court of Law.
iii. Any other relief, which may deem and fit by the Hon'ble court may also be
awarded.
iv. Cost of petition may also be awarded."
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the instant case are that complainant Abdul Haq
lodged an FIR No.120/2023 in violation of the offences under sections 324, 337- AD, 34
P.P.C. with Police Station Airport Quetta contending therein that the petitioner Samiullah on 07.05.2023 at 09.30 p.m fired upon him, whereby he received firearm injury on his leg. The complainant further alleged that Samiullah and his brother Hikmatullah also made assault upon him and his guest Habibullah.
3. The petitioner also received an incised wound as well as several bruises, whereof he
made an attempt to get lodge an FIR before the respondent No.1 and on failure resorted to file an application under section 22 -A Cr.P.C before learned Ex -Office, Justice of Peace-
Additional Sessions Judge - V, Quetta ("Ex -Officio JoP") with the submission that the
petitioner is nominated in FIR No.120/2023, under sections 324, 337- AD, 34 P.P.C. with
Police Station Airport Quetta, on the report of complainant Abdul Haq and that the applicant also received injuries in the alleged incident, who was referred to Hospital, whereof MCL No.1858 was issued, but could not succeed as his application was declined on 22.03.2023 by learned Ex -Officio JoP.
4. Heard. Record perused. Indisputably, Samiullah and his brother Hikmatullah had been
indicted in FIR bearing registration No.120/2023 for causing firearm injury to Abdul Haq and causing injuries to his guest Habibullah, whereas, the petitioner made an attempt to get register a counter FIR, but remained unsuccessful before the respondent No.1 and learned
Ex-Officio JoP. The learned Ex -Officio JoP while dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner under section 22- A of Cr.P.C held that the facts and circumstances show that no
cognizable offence is made out.
5. It is now settled principle of criminal administration of justice that regarding an
incident two FIRs cannot be registered, however, the counter version of the adversarial party can brought on record, including oral and documentary evidence. In this regard we are fortified and as such place reliance upon the dictum expounded in the well celebrated case of 'Mst. Sughra Bibi v. The State' (PLD 2018 SC 595), wherein it has been held as under:
"(v) During the investigation the investigating officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the versions of the incident brought to his notice and, as required by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 "It is the duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.
(vi) Ordinarily no person is to be arrested straightaway only because he has been nominated as an accused person in an FIR or in any other version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any person until the investigating officer feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for his arrest and for such justification he is to be guided by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Police Rules, 1934. According to the relevant provisions of the said Code and the Rules a suspect is not to be arrested straightaway or as a matter of course and, unless the situation on the ground so warrants, the arrest is to be deferred till such time that sufficient material or evidence becomes available on the record of investigation prima facie satisfying the investigating officer regarding correctness of the allegations levelled against such suspect or regarding his involvement in the crime in issue."
6. While deciding an application section 22 -A of Cr.P.C, the learned Ex- Officio JoP
besides other facts mainly has to see as to whether the facts and circumstances constitutes a cognizable offence or otherwise.
In the peculiar circumstances of a case, if no cognizable offence is constituted then
the learned Ex -Officio JoP has ample power to decline the registration of the case, however,
the Investigation officer shall be obliged to bring on record atleast the defence of the accused
in order to reach to the just conclusion. In failure to get register the FIR, the complainant may resort to the alternate remedy by filing a private complainant as contemplated under section 200 of Cr.P.C.
7. The facts and circumstances as well as the MLC bearing No.1858 of the petitioner
show that injuries prima facie squares under the offence of section 337- A (i) P.P.C., which is
not a cognizable offence, thus, the decision made by the learned Ex- Officio JoP is justified,
suffering from no error of law and fact, henceforth the impugned order need not to be meddled with.
The petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed.
JK/30/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.