KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Hyderabad Range police chief to initiate an impartial inquiry into allegations against Thatta police officials for depriving a resident of his valuables. The DIG was instructed to consider all aspects of the case and submit a report within a week.
This direction came following an application by Dr. Fateh Ali, who challenged an order from Thatta’s additional district and sessions court. The order had directed the Thatta SSP to conduct an impartial inquiry against Thatta police officials.
The applicant’s counsel stated that the complainant had lost confidence in the Thatta police, claiming they were “in league with one another.” He requested the court to have the Hyderabad DIG conduct an impartial inquiry instead.
Responding to a query from the court, the counsel argued that the remedy under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is more effective than filing a direct complaint with the court under Section 200 of the CrPC. The counsel claimed that ample material and evidence were available, prima facie showing the involvement of police officials who had taken valuable items from his client’s house under the pretext of conducting a raid for his arrest.
He acknowledged that while the trial court had rightly issued the order for conducting an inquiry, directing the Thatta SSP to conduct the inquiry was inappropriate as the Thatta police might prejudice the applicant’s case.
A single SHC bench headed by Justice Adnanul Karim Memon stated that the Supreme Court has held in recent judgments on Section 22-A of the CrPC that it is not the function of the justice of peace to punctiliously or assiduously scrutinize the case or render any findings on merits. Instead, he must ensure whether a cognizable case is made out from the facts narrated in the application, and if so, issue directions for recording the complainant’s statement under Section 154.
The bench noted that the powers of the justice of peace are limited to aiding and assisting in the administration of the criminal justice system and do not include assuming the roles of an investigating agency or a prosecutor. The justice of peace is meant to redress the grievances of complainants who have been refused by police officials to register their reports.
The SHC explained that if the justice of peace undertakes a full-fledged investigation before the registration of an FIR, it would require every person to first approach the justice of peace for complaint scrutiny, which is beyond the intention of the legislature.
The court stated that conducting a fact-finding exercise is not part of the functions of a justice of peace, but rather to redress the grievance of the complainant aggrieved by a police officer’s refusal to register his report. Investigative activities must be conducted impartially and honestly, aiming to bring the truth to light.
In the event of an FIR being declined, the aggrieved person has the right to approach under Section 22-A of the CrPC and file an application, where the justice of peace is obligated to examine it, hear the parties, and pass an appropriate order.
Given the complainant’s concerns that the police should protect and not abduct, the SHC directed the Hyderabad DIG to conduct an impartial inquiry into the matter, considering all aspects of the case and hearing the parties involved. The DIG was instructed to complete the inquiry within a week.
Published in News Daily on 17-July-2024.