Zubaida Khanum vs District Police Officer S — 2024 PCrLJ 1168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Zubaida Khanum VS District Police Officer S. 22-a(6) (3)---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, powers of---Scope---Petitioner preferred application under S.22-a, subsection (6) sub-clause (3), Cr.P.C., against Police Officials with regard to action against illegal act and for recording cross-version---Police Officials alleged that son of petitioner was apprehended while selling narcotic's and 4180 grams of charas, scale and wattak amount of Rs. 5700/- were recovered from his possession; that meanwhile brother of accused and others equipped with lethal weapons arrived, opened fire on the police officials, thus FIR under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997 and under Ss.324, 353, 186, 337-H(2), 148 & 149, P.P.C was registered---Petitioner contended in her petition that Police Officials forcibly entered her house and ransacked it; sons of petitioner tried to stop them, but they beat them; and Police Officials stole cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and gold jewellery from her house---Ex-officio Justice of Peace issued direction to the District Police Officer to inquire into the matter himself or through a senior Police Officer and proceed under the law---SDPO submitted report against the version of the petitioner---Validity---Occurrence mentioned in the petitioner's application under S.22-a(6) Cr.P.C., was manifestly a cross-version of FIR registered by police---anyhow, it could not be considered as information of a different incident regarding the commission of a cognizable offence that would warrant registering a separate FIR---Police FIR was registered under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997 and Ss. 324, 353, 186, 337-H(2), 148 & 149, P.P.C---Prosecution was required to submit two challans in the case, one under the Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997 and the other under P.P.C, because they were triable by separate Courts---Trial Court tried accused for the offence under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997 and acquitted him---If Police FIR had only been under the said offence, petition might have been dismissed right away---Court would have refused the petitioner relief even though she promptly approached the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to register her cross-version (i.e. eighteen days after filing of Police FIR and there was also no subsequent delay on her part---However, in the present case, the FIR was partially still alive because son of petitioner and others were charged with the Penal Code offences as well, but the challan had not been submitted before the Magistrate to their extent---Petitioner claimed that her son was shot in the upper part of the right thigh---District Standing Medical Board examined the injured and its members unanimously opined that his injury seemed to be fabricated---Provincial Standing Medical Board re-examined the injured under Court orders and affirmed the findings of District Standing Medical Board---Ex-officio Justice of Peace performed quasi-judicial functions under S.22-a(6), Cr.P.C., therefore, before issuing any direction on a complaint for non-registration of a criminal case, Ex-Officio Justice of Peace must satisfy himself that there was sufficient justification for it---Ex-officio Justice of Peace must address himself to the facts of the case and where he disagreed with the police report, he should give reasons for his disagreement---Ex-officio Justice of Peace could not just ignore the report of police---In the instant case, neither the police report nor the medical evidence supported the petitioner's cross-version---Therefore, request of petitioner for registration of cross-version could not be granted---Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Zubaida Khanum vs District Police Officer S — 2024 PCrLJ 1168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ