Find a Lawyer

Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2014, decided on 31st March, 2015.

----Ss. 154 & 155---Lodging of FIR---Procedure---For purposes of lodging FIR, criminal offences were to be classified into two sections, one which were cognizable, and the others, which were non-cognizable--- Provision under S.154, Cr.P.C., provided the procedure to the effect that a report conveyed to SHO, in respect of a cognizable offence, was to be dealt with accordingly, while the provision of S.155(1) of Cr.P.C., contained the procedure envisaged vis-a-vis the information, relating to a non-cognizable offence---Mandate and purpose of that law was that whenever SHO would receive some information about the commission of an offence, he was expected, first to find out, whether the offence fell into the category of cognizable offences, or was one which was not cognizable and thereafter the SHO was obliged to take action accordingly so that the mandatory provisions contained in Ss.154/155, Cr.P.C., would not be violated.

----Ss. 6, 22-A, 154, 155, 156, 435 & 439---Registration of criminal case---Powers of Justice of Peace---Revision before Chief Court---Maintainability---Offences as alleged in the present case were committed by proposed accused persons were non-cognizable, but SHO failed to adopt the procedure provided under S.155(1), Cr.P.C.---Petitioners, approached the Justice of Peace to use his power in the matter, but Justice of Peace declined application filed by the petitioner through impugned order---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, was not supposed to allow application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., in a mechanical manner, but he had to apply his mind, as to whether, the applicant had approached the court with clean hands; or it was tainted with malice---If the matter was judged in the light of that background, petitioner was trying to compensate himself about his wrong, he did with respondents---Appeal and revision, could be filed, only against an order/judgment passed by a competent court falling under S.6, Cr.P.C.; and any order passed by such court could be examined by High Court as provided under S.435, Cr.P.C.---Justice of Peace, could not be said to be a judicial authority holding a court as classified under S.6, Cr.P.C.---Order passed by Justice of Peace, could not be impugned through revision before Chief Court, because said order fell within the domain of administrative or supervisory, and not amenable to revisional jurisdiction---Revision petition, being not sustainable both on merit and maintainability, was dismissed, in circumstances. Ijlal Hussain for Petitioner. Ali Dad Khan and Faqir Shakir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st March, 2015.

Through this Criminal Revision Petition the petitioner has targeted the order dated 19-9-2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit in his capacity as ex-officio Justice of the peace whereby he has rejected an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the SHO of Police Station Airport, Gilgit for registration a criminal case against the respondents-1 and 2 for alleged negligence committed by them while discharging their professional duty. 2. The relevant facts leading to this litigation according to the material on record and the arguments advanced before me by the respective counsel of the parties are that petitioner"s wife Mst. Farhat Jabeen for her being pregnant visited many times to the hospital of respondents-1 and 2 for conducting Ultrasound. She visited the hospital for many times and in each and every ultrasound the respondents who were examining her gave okay report but at the birth of a baby it was found and recorded by same hospital that the baby had a sizeable Spina Bifida. According to the petitioner, he time and again had consulted the respondents to avoid any disease and also to ensure health of the mother and safety of the baby and the respondents furnished reports on each examination to be cleared but they practically failed in tracing the disease and thereby had exposed his wife and the baby for risk to their lives which may have been avoided if the problem had been diagnosed before birth of the child resultantly, the respondents-1 and 2 have committed an offence cognizable to police. He rushed to police station for registration of a criminal case against the respondents but no action was taken by respondent-3. 3. The petitioner presented application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. to Sessions Judge, Gilgit who in his capacity as Justice of the peace rejected the same, hence this revision petition. 4. It will be worth to mention that when the wife of the petitioner gave birth to the baby, the above-mentioned disease was witnessed at the back of the baby which emotionalized the petitioner. He went to respondent-1 to record his complaint but the protest pushed him to quarrel with the respondents which ultimately culminated into lodging FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner also tried to get a criminal case registered against the respondents-1 and 2, but failed. 5. For the purposes of lodging FIR criminal offences are to be classified into two sections. The one is which are cognizable and the others which are not cognizable. The provision laid under section 154, Cr.P.C. does provide the procedure in which a report conveyed to a SHO in respect of a cognizable offence was to be dealt with accordingly while the provisions of section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. tell us the procedure envisaged vis--vis the information relating to a non-cognizable offence. These provisions are re-produced as under:- S.154. Information in cognizable cases.---Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer Incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf. S.155. Information in non-cognizable cases.---(1) When information is given to an officer Incharge of a police-station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in a book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the information to the (Magistrate). 6. The mandate and purpose of this law is that whenever a Station House Officer receives some information about the commission of an offence he is expected first to find out whether the offence fell into the category of cognizable offences or was one which was not cognizable and thereafter the SHO is obliged to take action accordingly so that the mandatory provisions contained in sections-154/155, Cr.P.C. shall not be violated. 7. The offence as alleged in the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. if have committed by the respondents-1 and 2 (as per the version of the petitioner) were non-cognizable but it is clear from the record that respondent-3 even failed to adopt the procedure provided under section 155(1), Cr.P.C., therefore the petitioner approached the Justice of the peace to use his power in the matter but the learned Justice of the peace declined the application through the impugned order probably for reasons that the petitioner through evidence had failed in establishing prima facie case against the respondents because as per the research made in this file the Spina Bifida found at the back of the baby was not compulsorily for, is traceable in each case, which sometimes could not come to the range of Ultrasound due to movement of the baby in the Uterus. When such situation appears to the authority whose direction is sought for registration of the FIR, he must be vigilant before taking any decision in respect of issuing directives for lodging FIR so that an innocent and gentle person may not be suffered. There are case laws available vide which an ex-officio Justice of peace is not supposed to allow application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. in a mechanical manner rather emphasized upon him to apply his mind as to whether the applicant had approached the Court with clear hands or it was tainted with malice. If the instant matter is judged in the light of the above background, it would be cleared that the petitioner was trying to compensate himself about his wrong he did with respondents 1 and 2 while going in their hospital and the wrong culminated into FIR against him on the complaint of hospital administration. 8. Coming to the next leg of the arguments which has arisen from the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents about maintainability of this Revision Petition. It is the legal fact that an appeal and revision can be filed only against an order/judgment passed by a competent court falling under section 6, Cr.P.C. and any order passed by such court can be examined by this court as provided under section 435, Cr.P.C. as such Justice of the peace could not be said is a judicial authority holding a court like other court as classified under section 6 of Part-II of Chapter-II, Cr.P.C. in which the classes of criminal courts functioning in the country have been mentioned while no mention is there about the justice of peace to be a court. Thus, I am of the firm view that when a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge deals with an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., he could not be treated a court within the meaning of section 435, Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit in fact, is an order passed by a justice of peace who is never stricto sensu a court subordinate to this court as it acts purely in administrative capacity therefore, the order cannot be impugned through revision petition before this Court because the order falls within the domain of administrative or supervisory, is not amenable to Revisional Jurisdiction. It is now cleared that if the police refuses to register a case negating the Provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. then the aggrieved party can avail adequate remedy by first approaching the Sessions Judge as ex-officio justice of peace for exercise of powers under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Secondly, by approaching the Magistrate for exercise of power under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and thirdly by filing a direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. and in view of these alternate and adequate reliefs, the matter in hand could not be agitated even in writ petition. On filing complaint the Magistrate for provision of efficacious remedy can initiate inquiry into the matter by himself or might direct an enquiry to be conducted by a police officer and usually this stage comes when the SHO is not inclined to register a case as required by the complainant and same would be appropriate for him to file a private complaint before court of competent jurisdiction instead of running after police who was not ready to accept his contention. 9. For the reasons what have been discussed above, this petition is not sustainable for both merit and maintainability, hence dismissed. File. HBT/78/GB Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.