A citizen has approached a sessions court seeking registration of an FIR over the death of a food delivery rider who was killed after a speeding car overturned and crashed into his stationary motorcycle in Karachi’s Defence Housing Authority (DHA).
Jahanzaib Khalil filed an application with a South sessions court under the Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) naming the Complaint Cell (South) SSP and Sahil SHO as respondents while Hassan Bhangwar as the proposed accused.
The applicant stated that on February 22, the proposed accused was driving his vehicle at a high speed in utter violation of traffic laws and safety norms. His car went out of control near Saba Signal of DHA’s Khayaban-e-Ittehad and rammed into a food delivery rider, leaving him badly injured, he said, adding that the rider was taken to a hospital where he lost his life.
The applicant stated that as per media reports, the proposed accused failed to produce a valid driving licence to the police. “Despite commission of clear cognizable offences, no FIR has been registered by Respondent No.1 [Sahil SHO]. It is alleged that Proposed Accused belongs to an influential background and due to such influence, police authorities have deliberately failed to discharge their statutory duty,” he said.
He claimed that as per reports, the police and the proposed accused’s family used their influence to put pressure on the deceased’s legal heirs to let the matter go without taking any legal action against the proposed accused, adding that the legal heirs recorded their statement before the police that they were not willing to lodge any case against the proposed accused and that they had forgiven the proposed accused.
“This compromise was made by putting the legal heirs of the deceased under pressure so that the proposed accused will not have to face any legal action,” said the applicant. He opined that under the Section 154 of the CrPC, when the police received information about the commission of cognisable offence, the registration of an FIR was mandatory and not discretionary.
He said that the police authorities could not refuse to register the FIR merely because compromise was made between the victim family and the accused. “The facts mentioned above constitute criminal offence against the society not against a particular persons (Legal Heirs of the deceased),” he added.
“Even if legal heirs are not willing to pursue the matter, the State remains under constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce criminal law. That reckless driving endangers public safety at large and constitutes a public wrong.”
The court was therefore pleaded to direct the SHO to lodge an FIR against the proposed accused.
