RAB NAWAZ vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION, DAHARKI and 4 others
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court by impugning an order passed by the Sessions Judge acting as Justice of Peace, whereby an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking registration of a criminal case was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a Justice of Peace can refuse to order the registration of a First Information Report solely relying upon a police report and allegations of mala fides without proper evaluation of statutory duties under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the police report cannot be treated as the sole criterion for passing an order on such an application, and the primary duty of the Justice of Peace is to examine why police officials failed to record the statement as mandated by law. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Station House Officer to record the statement of the complainant and proceed in accordance with the law if a cognizable case is made out. The key principle laid down is that the Justice of Peace must independently examine the refusal of police to record information rather than relying exclusively on police reports or bare allegations of mala fides.
- Can a Justice of Peace rely solely on a police report to dismiss an application for registration of an FIR?
- What is the primary scope of jurisdiction of a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recording of statements?
- Whether an application for registration of a criminal case can be rejected merely on the ground that the applicant's relatives are involved in another criminal case?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The petitioner has impugned the order dated 19-10-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace Ghotki.
2. ' The allegations necessitating the lodging of F.I.R. Are mentioned in paragraph 2 to 5 of the application moved under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Today SIP Khalid Hussain Memon S.H.O. Police Station Daharki, respondent No, 1 has filed his statement in which it is stated that Crime No, 82 of 2010 has been lodged against the applicant's nephew therefore, in order to take revenge application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed.
3. ' I have seen the impugned order which shows that the application was rejected on two grounds; one is that the S.H.O. In his report stated that the nephews of the petitioner are involved in Crime No,82 of 2010 and secondly on the arguments of learned D.P.P. Who argued that the F.I.R. Is being sought to be registered for mala fide intention to harass the police personnel(s) from discharging their lawful duty. On the basis of these arguments the application was dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to file Direct Complaint. Whether, the application was moved A with mala fide intention or bona fide intention; this can only be proved after the statement of the complainant is recorded by the police and so far as the police report is concerned which can not be considered the sole criterian for passing the order by the Justice of Peace. The jurisdiction of the Justice of Peace is to see as to why the police officials who are duty bound to record the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Have refused to fulfill their duty.
4. ' Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent No,1 is directed to record the statement of the complainant B. And if any cognizable case is made out, he will act in accordance with the law.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace etc 2022 LHC 7848, 2024 PLJ Lahore 607
- Syed Sajid Hussain vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional Sessions 2022 YLR 112