Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz Mehmood Malik vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz Mehmood Malik VS State Ss. 22-a, 154 & 561-a---Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) act (XI of 2016), S. 23---Inherent powers of High Court under S.561-a, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace for the registration of FIR after recording the statement of complainant---Petitioners assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and sought quashing of the same---It was evident that the applicants, being officials of Gas Utility Company ('SSGC'), conducted a raid at the residence of Respondent No.4.---Such act aggrieved Respondent No.4, prompting him to seek legal recourse, initially by approaching the concerned SHO and subsequently by filing an application before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, though called reports from the applicants, but apparently it seemed that the assertions made therein were overlooked---In Para No.3 of the parawise reply/comments, it was asserted that raid was conducted on 18-12-2024 by SSGC officials along with lady searcher in pursuance of S.23 of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) act, 2016, through raid letter duly received at police station---However, it was incumbent upon the Justice of Peace to have a look, whether the information so supplied by the Respondent No.4 constituted a cognizable offence or otherwise, which had been ignored, for the obvious reason that allegation leveled in the application was to the extent that the applicants being SSGC officials transgressing their authorities conducted raid at the house of Respondent No.4---Plea taken by the applicants was that their act was strictly in accordance with the law, after seeking due permission from the higher authorities of the SSGC---Besides, their act was covered under S.23 of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) act, 2016---applicants being SSGC officials are/were authorized to search the premises not only in the case of theft, but suspected theft too---Sufficient material was placed in that respect by the applicants including letter dated 21-11-2024 to aGM Regional Office SSGC, seeking permission for conducting raid at the pointed place---Besides, the SHO in his report negated the assertions made by the Respondent No.4 and submitted, after communicating information to the police station on 18.12.2024, in presence of two lady Police Officials, that the raid was conducted---Where the police inquiry negated the occurrence of an alleged incident, compelling law enforcement to register an FIR would be an exercise in futility---Judicial discretion must be exercised prudently to prevent the abuse of legal provisions and the registration of FIR under such circumstances, absent substantive evidence, would serve no lawful purpose---Bare reading of the impugned order showed that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had been influenced from the situation wherein, nothing was taken into possession by the raiding team from pointed place, as no clamp was found and simply it was assumed that cognizable offence was made out---Such observations seemed to be based on assumptions and were not sustainable under the law, as Presiding Officer had failed to point out what cognizable offence(s) was made out for issuing directions to the SHO concerned to record statement of applicant and incorporate the same in S.154 Cr.P.C book---Upon careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances presented by the applicants, it was evident that no cognizable offense had been established---Therefore, it was not mandatory for Courts to direct the police to register FIR when the allegations appeared to be mala fide or lacked substantive grounds---Judicial prudence demanded that before issuing such directives, the Court must ensure that the same are not granted in a routine or mechanical manner, as doing so could infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals against whom such orders were passed---Impugned order, was set aside, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Aijaz Mehmood Malik vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ