ALLAH DITTA vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KHUSHAB and 12 others
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, which dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case. The petitioner alleged that private respondents forcibly entered his house, demolished it, and stole household articles, while a police official present at the scene failed to take action and threatened the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace erred in dismissing the application for registration of an FIR despite allegations of a cognizable offence. The Court held that the mere pendency of civil litigation does not preclude the registration of a criminal case, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to prove his allegations. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Station House Officer to record the complainant's statement under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing that the police are bound to register a case upon the report of a cognizable offence.
- Does the pendency of civil litigation between parties automatically bar the registration of a criminal case for a cognizable offence?
- Is a Station House Officer legally bound to register a criminal case under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the report of a cognizable offence?
- Can a Justice of Peace dismiss an application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without allowing the complainant an opportunity to prove the allegations?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 29-8-2007 passed by A the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab through which he has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of criminal case against the private respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-8-2007 when the petitioner was at Jauharabad for his work, respondents Nos.4 to 11 and 13 entered in the house of the petitioner forcibly, demolished the same and took away all the household articles including the building material. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the police and Ghulam Qadir A.S.-I. (respondent No,12) reached at the spot who saw all the aforesaid respondents-accused along with 40 unknown persons at the place of occurrence, but did not take any action; whereas the petitioner was threatened by the said A.S.-I.
To involve him in a false case, if he took legal action against the respondents-accused. Then the petitioner moved an application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the learned Justice of peace. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case; that the petitioner is owner in possession of the house where the occurrence had taken place; that respondents Nos.4 and 5 had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner and others, which was later on withdrawn on 17-5-2007 and now no civil litigation was pending between the parties; that the private respondents had entered in the house of the petitioner committed the cognizable offence, therefore, direction for registration of a criminal case against the private respondents may be issued.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of writ petition as well as other documents.
5. It is claimed that no civil suit was pending between the parties when the incident had taken place and the only suit filed by respondents Nos.4 and 5 was about another property and the same too was also dismissed as withdrawn. Even mere pendency of civil litigation is not sufficient to outrightly knock out the petitioner, unless he is provided opportunity to prove the allegation by producing the evidence. The petitioner has levelled serious allegation and the S.H.O./respondent No,3 is bound to register the case under section 154, Cr.P.C. If cognizable offence is reported. The learned Justice of Peace has passed an erroneous order, which is set aside and S.H.O. (respondent No,3) is directed to record the statement of the complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C.
' This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.