Rai MANSAB ALI Versus ALLAH DITTA, A.S.I. Mian Muhammad Aslam

ORDER

Through instant intra court appeal under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, appellant Rai Mansab Ali has called in question the legality of order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby Writ Petition No.32019/2016 filed by the appellant assailing the order of learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Nankana Satib dated 08.10.2016 was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. seeking direction for the registration of a criminal case against respondent No.1 and eight other police officers/officials with the allegation they conducted raid at his house in the intervening night of 18/19th of September, 2016 at about 01/02:00 a.m., trespassed into his house, made the inmates hostage, gave them bearing, damaged household articles and while leaving, took away documents of the landed property, cash of Rs.45,000/-, cheque-book and gold ornaments on gun point. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed the Station House Officer concerned to record the statement of the appellant under Section 154, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.10.2016 and proceed in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 assailed the said order through Writ Petition No.32019/2016, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.10.2016. Hence, this Intra Court Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was a serious allegation of trespassing into the dwelling house of the appellant and taking away precious articles on gun-point; that bare reading of the complaint shows the commission of cognizable offence and the Station House Officer was under the bounded legal duty to register a criminal case but in vain; that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace passed the impugned order with due application of judicious mind; that learned Single Judge in Chamber passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective.

4. Learned Law Officer has vociferously opposed the contention, however on out query, he has gracefully conceded with profession approach that contents of the complaint shows the commission of cognizable offence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Law Officer appearing for the State and perused the available record.

6. The appellant filed the aforementioned petition seeking direction for the registration of criminal case against police officials containing the serious allegation of trespassing into the house of appellant, outraging the modesty of women folk and commission of dacoity on gun-point while taking away previous articles from his house. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, being a quasi-judicial forum, had to pass such like orders judiciously and he had rightly appreciated the controversy between the parties keeping in view the commission of cognizable offence. Learned Single Judge in Chamber referred the matter to respondent No.2/District Police Officer, Nankana Sahib with the direction to summon both the parties, hear them out and proceed strictly in according with law without being prejudiced from the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and disposed of the matter. The exercise so undertaken by the learned Single Judge in Chamber amounts to put the horse before cart. The genuineness or otherwise of the accusation made against the proposed accused is serious in nature, which requires thorough probe during investigation after registration of the case especially, when it is against the police officials/officers. Learned Single Judge in Chamber has failed to appreciate the actual facts of the case and thereby committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.

7. The epitome of above discussion is that the appeal in hand is allowed, impugned order dated 28.10.2016 is set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to record the statement of the petitioner under Section 154, Cr.P.C. and proceed further strictly in accordance with law.

SA/M-150/L Appeal allowed.