ABDUL QADOOS and anothers vs SARWAR KHAN and 2 others

ORDER

' SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.--- Sarwar Khan (respondent) applied to learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Lakki Marwat under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. For a direction to S.H.O., Police Station, Naurang for registration of F.I.R. In his alleged cognizable case. His application was accepted on 25-3-2008, and consequently, F.I.R. No,77 dated 29-3-2008 of Police Station, Naurang, Lakki Marwat was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. About the occurrence allegedly taken place pn 18-3- 2008.

2. Aggrieved by the registration of case, the accused Abdul Qudoos and Abdur Rashid have instituted this constitutional petition for quashment of the F.I.R.

3. We have heard Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate for the petitioners whose fundamental contention is that the occurrence has allegedly taken place near the police station and the comments of S.H.O. Concerned dated 23-3-2008 conveys that no such incident took place at all.

4. We find that learned Justice of Peace, vide the impugned order dated 25-3-2008, has turned down the comments of S.H.O. For want of solid grounds and also being evasive. The registration of case was directed simply on the ground that commission of a cognizable offence has been alleged, which, is a valid ground.

5. Registration of F.I.R. In a cognizable case is a legal requirement as per observations of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Khan S.H.O. And 2 others v. Noor Jehan and another PLD 2008 Pesh.

53. Furthermore, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down in the case of Brig. Rtd.

Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCM R 2142 that in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction the power of judicial review should be exercised with necessary judicial restraint, essential to continuance of rule of law, because police has also a statutory right to investigate an alleged cognizable offence. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to add that a complainant who alleges commission of cognizable offence, not only has a right that his allegations should be recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C., but he also has a right that his allegations should be investigated to take the case up to obvious logical and legal end. Needless to mention that the accused can avail remedies within the parameters of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he believes that he is innocent, no case is made out against him, there is no likelihood of his conviction and he deserves acquittal before proper trial, for which the provisions of sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Do sufficiently provide him efficacious remedy.

6. With these views, we hold that the present writ petition has no substance for interference with the impugned order which has been passed in accordance with law and lawful authority, within the four corners of jurisdiction vested in the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.

7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.