GHULAM SARWAR vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION, VEEHAR and 2 others
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the II-Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Larkana, which dismissed the applicant's petition under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the registration of an FIR. The applicant alleged that ten accused persons forcibly entered his shop, assaulted him, and committed robbery. The Justice of Peace rejected the application, noting that the applicant could not identify the accused persons during the hearing, contradicting the specific allegations in his petition, and thus concluded the applicant had not approached the court with clean hands. The High Court reviewed the matter, noting that the parties had a long-standing dispute over a plot and that the police report denied the occurrence of the incident. Relying on the principle established in Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan (2005 SCMR 951), the Court held that where the police report is adverse and the parties are in conflict, a private complaint provides an adequate and equal remedy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, directing the applicant to pursue a direct complaint.
- Is a Justice of Peace required to order the registration of an FIR if the applicant fails to identify the accused persons during the hearing?
- Can a High Court decline a petition for the registration of an FIR when a private complaint serves as an adequate alternative remedy?
- Does the existence of a prior civil dispute between parties justify the refusal to register an FIR?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Through this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 18-5-2012, passed by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby he has rejected an application filed by the applicant under. Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C.
2. In hid application, the applicant has stated that on 9-5-2012, at about 11-00 a.m. He and his witnesses Jan Muhammad and Ghulam Hyder were present at a shop, where' all the ten proposed accused, whose names are mentioned in the title of application forcibly entered in his shop and gave kicks and fists blows to him and robbed cash of Rs,50,000 a mobile phone set, and destroyed the articles lying therein. In this regard, he went to police station, but the police refused to register hence he filed an application in terms of sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C which was dismissed by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana.
3. Through impugned order the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge Larkana/Justice of Peace, declined the prayer of the applicant by observing that the applicant was present in Court and on query regarding names of the accused, he only .Nominated two accused persons, namely, .Ayaz and Abdul Nabi, while proposed F.I.R. Discloses names of ten proposed accused specifically nominated with weapons and for remaining accused he stated before the Court that he does not remember names of the remaining co-accused and those names were disclosed to him by one Ghulam Akbar who was sitting at his shop .At time of occurrence. The learned Justice of Peace finding that the applicant has not come with clean hands, declined to issue directions to the concerned S.H.O. Prayed by the applicant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the State counsel for the applicant contended that learned Justice of Peace has erred in law and exercised discretion in favour of the proposed accused. He further added that the contents of application filed by applicant under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., prime facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence and as per provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station is required and bound to register F.I.R. And he has no power to refuse.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order.
6. I have found from the available material that the applicant and the proposed accused are on disputed terms with each other since long. Per comments furnished by the concerned S.H.O., no any incident as alleged by the applicant had taken place and on account of dispute over plot the applicant intends to lodge F.I.R. Against the proposed accused.
7. Iri the case of Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCM R 951), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that filing of private complaint could provide an equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could be adequately redressed considering also the fact that respondent/S.H.O., who in the report and para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the petitioner's case, therefore, it could not be expected from the concerned S.H.O. That he would carry independent and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective of the facts and circumstances which could call for exercise of judicial restraint in turning down the request for registration of F.I.R. In view of the conduct of the party besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner.
8. In view of the above circumstances and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the applicant to institute a direct complaint before the court having jurisdiction, where he could lead entire evidence himself and his grievance could be adequately redressed. With above observations, the application being merit-less is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUNAWAR ALI SHEIKH vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE LARKANA and 3 2013 P Cr. L J 1226