Malik MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others

ORDER

' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This Constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 30-1-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore whereby SHO had been directed to look into the matter and to proceed in accordance with law.

2. Muhammad Khalid, respondent No,2, by filing application under section 22-A/B, Cr.P.C. Secured above said order against the petitioner.

3. It is contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ExOfficio Justice of Peace, Lahore without applying its legal mind to facts narrated in the petition had issued direction against the petitioner particularly when civil matter is pending in civil court between the parties who are brothers inter se.

4. The order passed by the learned Justice of Peace has been examined, which discloses that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had directed SHO to look into the matter and to proceed thereon in accordance with law.. Such like orders have never been approved either by this Court or by apex Court as same are non-speaking in nature. By passing such ambiguous order an aggrieved person has been left at the mercy of a police official for examining the act complained of. It has been ignored by the court that same person had not entertained the application of complainant for taking proceedings under section 154, Cr.P.C., who was constrained to knock the doors of the court.

5. Law casts holy duty upon the learned Justice of Peace for examining the petition and other material available on record for determining if any cognizable offence is made out therefrom or not. In this connection, learned Justice of Peace is bound by law to take into consideration contents of petition filed under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. As well as to examine the complainant/petitioner if needed. He may seek a report from the SHO of Police Station concerned in the matter. No doubt spirit of promulgating provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Is that report should not be entered/registered after holding preliminary enquiry but this provision of law has grossly been misused by first informants, who just to satisfy their ego or to take revenge from its opponent, lay false information. Even such first information is also provided in cases involving civil disputes like one relating to execution of an agreement to sell and business transaction etc., as such in order to sift the chaff from grain, it has become imperative for Court to have a report from Police Station. Further in appropriate cases, the person against whom a direction for registration of case is sought, may also be summoned in the Court for showing cause as to why direction for registration of case should not be issued against him. The calling of aggrieved person is based on analogy that SHO before submitting report to Court, summons both parties and after hearing them dispatches same to Court with his own finding thus if that report of SHO, is considered, in which both parties have already been heard then there is no harm in calling that party in the Court for arriving at just conclusion. This would help in curbing multiplicity of litigation and work load could be managed besides saving precious public time. This practice if adopted would advance the principle of natural justice i.e, audi alteram partem.

6. It has further been experienced that learned Justice of Peace now-a-days have adopted a practice of referring the matters to police authorities for implementation of their directions for registration of case, when petitioner again complains through separate application, complains indifferent attitude of SHO towards implementation of direction. This practice adopted by Courts has increased, tremendously, workload in higher judiciary. It is Justice of Peace, who is competent and equally enjoys jurisdiction to call upon SHO of Police Station concerned, where direction was sent for implementation, to appear in person in Court for showing cause as to why he did not comply with the orders and to take coercive measures against him till the direction is implemented. The Courts should be assertive and should jealously watch implementations of their own orders. The matter cannot be left at sweet-will of persons, who are already reluctant in performing their duties, bestowed upon them by law. If a Judicial Officer fails to implement his own order, then he could he treated as an inefficient Judicial Officer, which observation may be reflected in his annual confidential report by his initiating authority.

7. Thus crux of the discussion is that a Justice of Peace should apply his legal mind to facts and circumstances of matters under his consideration, determine cognizability of an offence himself even if he has to examine complainant or to summon respondent and then to make clear and unambiguous direction, for taking proceedings under section 154, Cr.P.C. Which he shall himself implement instead of taking help of officials of police hierarchy.

8. In view of the above, the order of learned Justice of Peace is set aside and he is directed to re- consider the application of the petitioner and if from the contents of the application any cognizable case is made out, he should issue direction in clear terms to the SHO concerned for registration of the case. The petition is disposed of accordingly.