Muhammad Shafique vs Asj etc.

w.P. NO. 4903 0F 20ls/ BWP.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN'I'It |l LA I I OI{ta il I GI I C(J UR,l" l}AtlA

WALI' UR

BENCI{, BAI_IAWALPUR.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No. 4903 of 2015/tsWp.

Muharnmad Shafiq, etc. Vs. ASJ/ J.O.P, etc.

JUDGMENT.

Dates ofhearin 26.8.201s Mr. Zafar lqbai Awnnlduoii* Mr..Strecd Ahri Asil, A.S.t.

is directed against the order dated I 1.06.2015, passed by the

learned Ex-Officio.lustice of pcace/ r.espouclcn[ No.I rvhcreby

a direction has been given to the SHO to record the statement of respondent No.3 and interrogatc thc rrrattcr in issuc ancl il_ a cognizable offence is made or.rt then he shall proceed further as

required under section 154 Cr.p.C.

2.Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners armed with fire-arms entered in the house of respondent No.3

with the intention to illegaily take possession bLrt on intervention when failecl con.rmitted the of-Ience ol thell.

RcsporrdcrI N..3 r,ovctr a \l lrcr.itiorr urrcrcr sectiorr 22-A & 22_rJ Cr.P.C. before responclent No. i lbr r.egistr.ation of criminal case against the petitioners. Report was requisitioned fr.om

respondent No.2/ SHO police Station Liaquatpur, District Rahimyar Khan, who filed the same on 25.5.2015, wherein he has specifically mentioned that a thorough inquiry was hclcl by hirn and accolding to that iuqLriry no such ocoLu.l.enco took place. The learned Ex-Officio Jr-rstice of peace without taking into consideration the report submitted by the police decided the application on 11.6.2015, hence this petition.

3.I have hcard the leamecl counscl lbr thc petitioner, leamed A.A.G, and have also gone through the record annexed with this petition. It has trcen l'ouncl that thc lqar.ncil llx-Officio Justice of Peace called fo. a report from the SI-ro/ respor.rcle't No.2 which was submitted but without giving any weight to the abovementioned report, made by the police, or even discuss it prefened to pass the irnpugned order.

4.The purpose of the report/comments from the police has been described in detail in the case titled Khizar Lahore and others". reported as (p.L.D. 2005 Lahore 4iCD in the following terms:-

"It is prudent and advisable for an Ex_Officio Justice of the Peace to call for comments of the officer incharge of the relevant police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that l.re rnay be apprised of the

o reasons why the local police has not registered a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. It may well be that the complainant has been econornizing with the truth and the comlnents of the local police may help in completing the picture and making the situation ciearer for the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace facilitating hirr-r in issuing a just and colrcct clilcction, il'any."

"The officer incharge of the relevant Police Station may be under a statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. wltenovol inlblmation disclosing comurission ol a cognizable offence is provided to irirn but tlie provisions of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. do not make it obligatory for an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to necessalily or blindfoldedly issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case wherrever a oourplaint is filed before him in that rogard. An Dx-C)llicio .lustice ol' thc l'cacc slrt>ulcl exercise cautiorl and lestraint in this rcgiircl and hc nrry call for comments of the officer incharge of the relevant Police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that he may be apprised of the reasons why the local police have not registeled a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. If the comments furnished by the office inchargc of the relevant Police Station disclose no j ustiliablc lcilsorl lbl not lcgiste ling a criminal case ou the basis o1'thc inlbmration supplicd by the complaining person then an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace would be justihed in issuing a direction that a criminal case be registered and investigated."

5.The above mentioned dictum clearly indicates importance of the report of the police, so that real facts, should conro ol1 thc lr;colcl, but in tlrc rnul.tcr. in hancl, as statcd abovc:, the learned Ex-Oflicio Justice o1. peace, although has sought report fi'om the police but despite its availability on the recorcl, has ignored it and failed to give any reason for not believing the sane.

6.An Ex-Officio Justice of peace is not bound to seek repoft from the police at every cost and he is firlly colrpetent to decide the application and pass an order even without any report by the police but when a report is called, to know the truth and real facts, as per the above mentioned dictum. then it should not be ignored. IfEx-Officio Justice ofpeace does not agree with the report, then should give the reasons. Seeking and obtaining a police repofi but ignoring and passing an order, contrary to it, without assigning any reason could not be appreciated. Special care to this situation is required.

7.Resultaltly, thc instant wr.it petition is accepted, the impugned order dated ll.6.2015,passed by respondent No.l is set aside and the application for registration of case is t\r dismissed.

il 9. Despite the abovementioned, res;rondent No.3. if so advised, shall have the remedy of fiting a private complaint

f

according to the dictum laid down in the cases reported as (Punjab). Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) and Rai Ashraf and others Vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhafti and others

(PLD 2010 SC 691). .I

----tiA-a

(slrEHRAM SARWAR CH.)

JUDCE

Approved for reporting, > rrr.^..- -'a:>' --<-

JI.JDGE.

Munir.