KEHAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, KOTRI and 3 others

ORDER

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- By this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant has challenged the order, dated 2-12-2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kotri, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,245 of 2008, by which the application of the applicant for registration of the F.I.R. Has been dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the impugned order was passed after inquiry through concerned police station. He then submits that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has also gone into the factual inquiry and influenced by the police report coupled with the civil litigation pending between the parties, dismissed the said application. He has relied upon the reported case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. And others PLD 2007 SC 539.

3. The learned State Counsel states that the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is within his powers and he can decline to direct the police to register the F.I.R., if no cognizable offence has been made out.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available before me.

5. From the order impugned it is apparent that the same was passed after calling a report from the concerned police station and the other pending cases and civil litigation were also considered for refusing to register the F.I.R. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has also heard the Advocate for the accused persons before passing the orders.

6. Section 154, Cr.P.C. Provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be recorded by him or under his direction and shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form, as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. It is now a well-settled principle of law that under section 154, Cr.P.C. a statutory duty has been cast upon the office incharge of police station to enter information regarding commission of any cognizable offence in a register.

7. Similarly, under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., powers were given to Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to direct the Police Officers to record the statement in the register if a cognizable offence is made out.

The powers exercised by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are very limited which have been given to supervise and to aid the criminal justice system and not of judicial nature but administrative and ministerial in nature, and while exercising such powers the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace should mot enter into the disputed question of facts to find out the truth and on the basis of the application made before him has to form his opinion whether a cognizable offence has been made out or not.

8. In the reported case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant it was held that "provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. Command S.H.O. To lodge an F.I.R., if the information conveyed to him disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the information being correct or incorrect.

Undoing this wrong of non-registration of a criminal case would mean only an order to the S.H.O. To register the case. It was further held in the same judgment, that the provisions of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Confer no additional powers on an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to hold any inquiry to assess the credibility of such an information communicated for the purpose in question nor do the said provisions give any extra authority to the said Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to refuse registration or order non-registration of the F.I.R. In violation of or beyond the mandatory requirements of section 154, Cr.P.C.

9. The Ex-Officio Justice of peace in his order has held that application is not maintainable which is not understandable. It appears that he is influenced with the pending civil litigation which is nothing to do with the registration of a criminal case, and the registration of criminal case cannot be refused on the ground of pendency of civil litigation.

10. In view of the above, the order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kotri to pass an order without influencing from the report of the concerned police station and the civil litigation pending between the parties.

' Criminal miscellaneous application disposed of.