22-A & 22-B

ARTICLE 175 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973
AND SECTIONS 22-A, AND 25 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1898

1- AMENDMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1898

A- On November 21, 2002 ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan were conferred an
additional role through promulgation of the Criminal Procedure (Third Amendment) Ordinance (Federal
Ordinance No.CXXXI) of 2002 and this role was in respect of entertaining complaints and issuance of
appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned regarding registration of criminal cases and in
respect of neglect, failure or excess committed by the police authorities in relation to its functions and
duties. PLD 2005 Lah 470.
B- The provisions of sections 22-A, & 22-B, Cr.P.C, have been added to the Statute Book
whereby Sessions Judges and Judge of a High Court, by virtue of their office being justice of peace, can
exercise all powers of a police u/s 54. Cr.P.C. PLD 2002 Kar 328.

2- OBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT

A- Amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, have been so made to lessen the burden of
High Court which was created through filing of writ petitions seeking registration of cases and transfer of
investigations. PLD 2007 SC 539, 2005 MLD 1593.
B- Object of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is only, that if a grievance is voiced with regard to non-registration
of FIR in a cognizable offence, Justice of the Peace in terms of said section can only direct/suggest as to
whether in the terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C the S.H.O. had acted legally or illegally. 2007 P.Cr.L.J 124.
C- Object of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is to provide a responsible forum at the door step of citizen for
rescue against unlawful declines relating to registration of cases in cognizable offences. PLD 2008 Pesh
53.

3- POWERS OF JOP, TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C.

A- Only jurisdiction which can be exercised by an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section
22-A, Cr.P.C is to examined whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a
cognizable offence and if it did then to direct the concern SHO to record an FIR, without going into the
veracity of the information in question and no more. PLD 2007 S.C.539.
B- Ex-officio Justice of Peace is empowered to direct registration of case. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1466.

C- Powers conferred on Sessions Judge u/s 22-A (6), Cr.P.C. though are not at par with those of
writ mandamus, but are substantially of that nature when Sessions Judge as the justice of peace, could
direct in charge of a Police Station to register a criminal case reported to it if cognizable offence was
made out. 2005 YLR 3297.

D- Condition precedent is simply two fold; first it must be information and secondly it must
relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. 2007
P.Cr.L.J 145.
E- Every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence pertains only to the
information so supplied and do not pertain to actual commission of the cognizable offence and that
information supplied should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence of his truthfulness or
otherwise the concerned police official has only to satisfy himself to the extent that information is in
respect of a cognizable office. PLD 2003 Lah. 228.
F- Under provision of Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. complaint regarding non-registration of criminal
case can be made before ex-officio Justice of the Peace which u/s 25, Cr.P.C, is Sessions Judge. 2005
P.Cr.L.J. 487.
G- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting
as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on
a complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities
in relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.
H- Sessions Judge is empowered to issue as ex-officio justice of peace appropriate directions to
police authorities on a complaint regarding (i) non-registration of criminal case; (ii) transfer of
investigation from one police station to other (iii) to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed by
police authority to relation in its functions and duties. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.
J- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional
Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate
directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal
case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed
by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 487.
K- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal
with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the Police
order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.

L- Ex-officio Justice of Peace is empowered to direct registration of case. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1466.

M- Justice of the Peace passed order with direction to SHO concern to record the statement of the
petitioner and proceed further strictly in accordance with law. SHO should recorded statement u/s 154,
Cr.P.C. and hand-over the copy of the FIR to the petitioner without any delay. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 296.

N- The Justice of the Peace could issue orders for registration of a case on an application under
Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. against the respondent. PLD 2006 Lah 460.

P- The directions to be issued by an ex-officio justice of peace under this section or to be

direction to be concerned Police authorities to attend to the grievance of the complaining person in
accordance with the relevant law and through the jurisdiction u/s 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 Lah.470,
PLJ 2005 Lah. 1571.

Q- Sessions Judge acting as Justice of Peace is equally competent to issued appropriate direction
regarding registration of case, transfer of investigation or any wrong done by the police authorities in the
performance of their duties. 2004 YLR 56.

R- Under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. if Justice of Peace would find that an incident had taken place, then he
was required under the law to issue directions for registration of case. 2011 YLR 27.

S- Justice of the Peace is possessed with jurisdiction under section 22-A (6), Cr.P.C, to decide
after examining information as to whether or not any cognizable offences made out. He cannot delegate
such powers and functions to Police. 2008 YLR 2301.

T- Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. gives power to the Sessions Judge to direct registration of case, in case
of failure of the police official to discharge their statutory obligation as vested in them u/s 154,
Cr.P.C. PLD 2000 Lah 208, 2004 P.Cr.L.J.1214.

U- Justice of the Peace can issue direction when there is complaint in respect to non-registration
of a case and if such complaint is brought before him then he can simply direct that police has to act in
accordance with law and entertain the complaint and if cognizable offence is made out then further action
be taken in accordance with law. 2008 MLD 1142.

V- Section 22-A (6) has provided authority to Justice of the Peace to issue appropriate direction
to police authorities on a complaint regarding non registration of FIR. PLD 2008 Pesh. 53.

W- Perusal of clause (iii) of subsection (6) of Section 22-A show that its purse no embargo for
passing such an order during the investigation, if any neglect, failure or excess committed by the Police
authority in relation to its functions and duties brought to the notice of court and proper direction to
eradicate the failure of the Police Officials in sough. PLD 2008 Pesh 1.

X- Whenever a police officer fails to register a criminal case, a direction to do so can always be
issued by the Justice of the Peace u/s 22-A (6) (1) Cr.P.C. though it will be for such officer to determine
whether the matter falls u/s 154 or 155. 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 909.
Y- REJECTION OF COMPLAINT BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
a)- Justice of Peace is competent to examined complainant with full application of legal mined
and is not supposed to accept and believe the same as gospel of truth. If Justice of Peace after examination
or complainant with full application of legal mind comes to the conclusion that allegation set up by
complainant person to be ridiculous, or self-contradictory or vague or barred by law or offensive to public
policy and accepted standard of morality, he may be legally justify to turn down the request of registration
of a case. 2008 YLR 2301.

b)- Application filed under Ss. 22-A(6), 22-B, Cr.P.C., for registration of a case allowed by the
ex officio Justice of Peace. Accused challenge the order. Dispute related to shops. Dispute between the
parties could be resolved by civil Court, registration in such a case is not approved. 2011 YLR 1768.

c)- Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, after examination of complaint, come to the conclusion that
the allegation leveled by the complaining person appears to be false and fabricated, he may be legally
justified in turning down the request for registration of a case.PLJ 2012 Cr.C.(Quetta) 581.

Z- ORDER, CONTRARY TO THE POLICE REPORT.

a)- Ex-officio Justice of Peace, if not agreeing with the report furnished by the Police, can pass
an order contrary to it. 2007 PCrL.J 1935.

b)- The Ex officio Justice of the Peace can refuse registration of case only if police report
discloses no justifiable reason for registration of a case. 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 1775.

AA- DIRECTION, WITHOUT REPORT OF THE POLICE.

a)- If Additional Sessions Judge directs SHO to probe into the matter, to holding preliminary
inquiry and report within a week, he should wait for such report. Disposal of the application without
waiting for the report is not proper. 2005 YLR 1610.

BB- DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SHO.

a)- The Justice of the Peace can direct SHO to look into the matter and then decide as to whether
a cognizable offence is made out or not. PLD 2009 Lah.232.

b)- He is not supposed to delegate his authority to SHO in slipshod manner and leave the
controversy to the judgment of SHO to decide as to what was in accordance with law. 2008 YLR 2406.
c)- Direction given to the SHO by Ex-officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceeding against
petitioner under section 182, PPC is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C, and in excess of
jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law. PLD 2007 Lah 53.

CC- NO HEARING OF THE ACCUSED

a)- Justice of Peace while deciding the case under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C, is not
required to issue notice to person against whom registration of a case is required but is required to
summons the concerned Police Officer so that a direction could be issued to him to register a case. 2011
P.Cr. L.J. 913.
b)- The basic provision provides no hearing of the accused before passing order under section
22-A, Cr.P.C while exercising constitutional jurisdiction in such a case, Court is not obliged to hear the
accused. PLD 2000 Lah 208, 2004 P.Cr.L.J.1214.

c)- At the time of first information report, accused persons named in the complaint, have no right
of hearing. 2002 P.Cr.L.J 9.

DD- DIRECTION, FOR SECOND FIR

a)- Where the claim or version of an accused is reported by him before the police, under the law
the police is required to bring same on record and then to preceded therewith in accordance with law. If
such right is denied by the Police/Investigating Officer, the remedy available under S. 22-A Cr.P.C.
cannot be jeopardized merely because previously FIR has been recorded and has been investigated. PLD
2009 Lah 8.

b)- Second FIR, in circumstances was permissible under the law. Justice of Peace committed no
illegality by issuing the direction for the registration of the FIR on the statement of daughter of the
deceased. 2011 YLR 883.

EE- DIRECTION, IN NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES.

a)- No bar exists on issuance of directions by the Justice of the Peace to register a case in non-
cognizable offence. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 981.

b)- Though no order for registration of case can be passed but Justice of Peace should direct
SHO concern to received application for registration of case to enter the same in the Roznamcha and
thereafter under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the
matter and proceed strictly in accordance with law. 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 1358.

FF- JURISDICTION/POWERS TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER

SECTION 22-A(6)(ii) Cr.P.C.
a- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal
with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the
Police order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.
b- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional
Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate
directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal
case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess
committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005
P.Cr.L.J 487.
c- Sessions Judge is empowered to issue as ex-officio justice of peace appropriate directions to
police authorities on a complaint regarding (i) non-registration of criminal case; (ii) transfer of
investigation from one police station to other (iii) to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed
by police authority to relation in its functions and duties. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.
 GG- SATISFACTION OF COURT BEFORE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION.
a- Under section 22-A (6)(ii), Cr.P.C if ex officio justice of peace receives complaint regarding
the transfer of investigate from one police officer to another, in such case he has to satisfy himself
whether it is justifiable to transfer the investigation or otherwise for that he may hold inquiry but it should
be kept in mind that inquiry should not take a longer period as the police are required to submit the
challan within the period of 15 days after registration of the FIR. In case he is satisfied, he has to issue a
proper direction to the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) under Article 18(3) of Police Order, 2002
who is competent to transfer the investigation under Article 18(6) of the Police Order………………….
No other role is required to be performed by the ex officio justice of peace. PLD 2009 Kar 14.

HH- CANNOT SUGGEST A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE

a- Justice of the Peace cannot suggest the procedure or give direction to do a certain act as any
such direction to suggest a particular procedure of investigation is departure from provision of law. 2011
YLR 2141.

JJ- INTERFERENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION

a)- Police has got a statutory right to investigate the cognizable offence and such statutory right
cannot be interfered by the courts. 2000 P.Cr.L.J 43.

b)- Investigation is the legal duty of the police or other authorized agencies cannot be delegated
to any private person or body. 2004 YLR 500.

c)- Only an officer in charge of police station has jurisdiction to investigate a cognizable
offence. PLD 1997 SC 408.

d)- Judiciary cannot interfere with the investigation of a police officer as held by the privy
council as back as in 1945 in Nazir Ahmed…Vs…The State (AIR 1945 P.C.18), and affirmed by
Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shehnaz Begum’s case (PLD 1971 SC 677) and in the case of Brg.
Imtiaz…Vs…The State (1994 SCMR 2142).

e)- There is no justification with Justice of Peace to forward request for change of investigation
to local police in of statutory provision of Police Order 2002. It is permissible for Justice of Peace to
activate process of change of investigation in terms of Article 18(6), Police Order, 2002 particular when
written complaint before concerned quarters not disposed of on its merits. 2008 P.Cr.L.J.1374.

f)- Sessions Judge is not empowered under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. to direct the Investigating
Agency to submit challan under a specific provision of law. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.

g)- The Ex officio justice of peace is not supposed to indulge in inquiries / investigation instead
he should direct the I.O. to conduct investigation in accordance with law. Court cannot interfere in the
process of collection of evidence under Sections 156 and 157, Cr.P.C. by police. Justice of peace cannot
suggest the procedure or given direction to do a certain act as any such direction to suggest a particular
procedure of investigation is departure from provision of law. 2011 YLR 2141.

h)- If in their capacity as ex-officio Justice of the Peace judicial officers like Sessions Judges and
Additional Sessions Judges are allowed to play a proactive, hands-on and upbeat role of direct
interference in the administrative working of the police then such executive role of judicial officer may
militate against the constitutional mandate of separation of the judiciary from the Executive enshrined in
the Article 173(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.PLD 2005 Lah 470.
j)- Even the superior Courts of Pakistan having constitutional, legal, supervisory and inherent
judicial jurisdiction have consistently and consciously refrained from directly interfering with the
investigation of a criminal case by the police and, therefore, it is but obvious that Justice of the Peace
possessing only administrative and ministerial powers should twice shy of such direct interference. PLD
2005 Lah 470.

k)- Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. does not allow an ex-officio Justice of the Peace to put on the
mantle of a higher police authority himself and to start exercising all those executive powers himself
which the relevant law has vested in the concerned police authorities. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

l)- Conduct and manner of investigation normally is not to be securitized under constitutional
jurisdiction which may amount to interference in police investigation as the same cannot be substituted by
court. PLD 2009 SC 102.

m)- The Justice of the Peace cannot stop investigation except for want of jurisdiction. 2008 YLR
2271.

n)- Justice of Peace cannot make an observation with regard to the nature of offence or direct
addition or deletion of a penal provision as some exclusive as same exclusively fell within the domain of
I.O. before the challan is submitted. 2008 YLR 2017, 2007 PCr.L.J 124, 2006 YLR 2772.

p)- No investigation can be carried out in a criminal case and relevant FIR cannot be cancelled
by a Magistrate or by any other judicial or executive officer after submission of challan before trial court
and after taking cognizance of case by trial court. 2005 MLD 908.

q)- Judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their domain and
into which the law imposes upon them the duty of inquiry Functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with due observation of law and
order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions………..investigation stage is
outside the purview of court. PLD 1996 Lah 598.

r)- It is by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nisa Cheema case (PLD 2007 SC 31) that when
investigation has reached in trial court and the trial commenced, changing of investigation in the matter
thereafter is an exercise unsustainable in law. PLD 2010 Lah 224.

s)- The Guilt or innocence, collection of evidence, recording of the statement and recovery of
weapon of offence and all other matters (medical examination of accused) relating to investigation of case
are within the powers and authority of police, which should not be interfered with except in exceptional
cases. Police should be given free hand to investigate the case with its own wisdom. 2004 YLR 2291.

t)- Actions of the investigating agencies are out of the purview of the courts. PLD 1965 SC 27,
PLD 1976 SC 271.

u)- There are no powers with the court to quash an investigation. PLD 1993 SC 399.

v)- Provision of S.22-A, Cr.P.C, cannot override the specific provisions contained in Chapter
LXIII Cr.P.C., which squarely and fully regulate the process as to whom articles were to be given in
custody and in what condition. Such authority, judicial in nature has been exclusively conferred upon the
Magistrate. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45.
 KK- JURISDICTION/POWERS TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER
SECTION 22-A(6)(iii) Cr.P.C.
a- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional
Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate
directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case,
transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a
police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 487.
b- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting
as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a
complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities in
relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.
c- Special powers of Justice of Peace having been conferred upon Session’s Judge and
Additional Sessions Judge under section 25, Cr.P.C. They have vested with some executive powers which
are given under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C regarding neglect, failure of excess committed by a Police
authority in relation to its functions and duties. The Justice of Peace can issue and appropriate
direction, if he notices illegality or excess of authority. PLD 2009 Lah. 69.
d- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal
with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the Police
order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.

e- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting
as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a
complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities in
relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.

f- It has been noticed with grave concern the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in many cases
frequently issue directions to the superior officers of the police seized of the investigation of a case to take
departmental disciplinary action against him/them. Such powers have not been expressly conferred upon
the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, therefore, they shall refrain from issuing such orders because it would
result into penalty/penal consequences. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 45.

LL- INTERFERE IN THE AFFAIRS OF JUDICIARY

a)- Executives are not supposed to interfere in the affairs of judiciary any manner. PLD 2008 SC
522.
b)- Provisions of Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. are not meant to interfere in the judicial
functions of the Courts if after investigation the challan is submitted and cognizance is taken by the Court
of competent jurisdiction. 2005 YLR 3127.
c)- The powers exercise by ex officio Justice Peace u/s 22-A, Cr.P.C. are neither additional nor
has super imposing effect on the power of the executive and judicial authorities which have been
expressly conferred upon those authorities regulating particular subject matter. In the capacity of
administration officer it can over see and check the atrocities committed by the police and to direct them
to abide by the law and not to disregard it, but to a very limited extent. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45, PLD 1971
S.C.677; 1994 SCMR 2142.
d)- Court would proceed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused on the basis of
evidence produced before it. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 245.

e)- Court only has the right to hold a person innocent or guilty. 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1804.

MM- COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE JUSTICE OF THE

PEACE.
a- Explicit order/direction, passed by Justice of the Peace, must have been compiled with in
letter of and spirit, when said order was not set aside by any court of law or the operation thereof had been
stayed. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 180.

NN- POWERS OF THE JOP, ARE ADMINISTRATIVE AND

MINISTERIAL.
a- Sessions Judge /Additional Sessions Judges while performing their duties as Ex officio
Justice of Peace would perform their duties on administrative site. 2010 YLR 1598.

b- Registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation and issuance of restrain order not to
cause harassment etc, are essentially administrative functions. PLD 2002 Lah 619.
c- Functions to be performed by a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace are
merely administrative and ministerial in nature and character. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

d- Justice of the Peace is saddled with the administrative duty to redress the grievances of
complainant aggrieved by refusal of police officer to register their reports. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 268.

e- Powers are neither supervisory nor judicial, but are administrative and ministerial in
nature. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

PP- POWERS OF THE JOP, ARE LIMITED

a- Powers of Justice of Peace are very limited which have been given to aid assist and authorize
the criminal jurisdiction system. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

b- The powers exercise by ex officio Justice Peace u/s 22-A, Cr.P.C. are neither additional nor
has super imposing effect on the power of the executive and judicial authorities which have been
expressly conferred upon those authorities regulating particular subject matter. In the capacity of
administration officer he can over see and check the atrocities committed by the police and to direct them
to abide by the law and not to disregard it, but to a very limited extent. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45.

c- Powers of an Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C could therefore, not be
equated with the constitutional jurisdiction vesting in a High Court. PLD 2007 SC 539.

9- POWERS OF THE JOP, CANNOT BE EXERCISED

MECHANICALLY
A- Jurisdiction under Ss. 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, cannot be exercised mechanically by the ex
officio justice of peace by directing registration of FIR. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 438, PLD 2010 S.C. 691.
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
C- Application under Sections 22-A and 22-B was dismissed by justice of peace and the order
was maintain by single Judge of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Appellant
had adequate alternative remedy by filing a private complaint in respect of allegations being leveled
against respondent. ICA dismissed. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 3906.

D- Any order passed by Justice of Peace is subject to scrutiny on judicial side by Superior Court
of Pakistan, therefore, administrative legal forum is required to disposed an application under sections 22-
A and 22-B Cr.P.C, by means of speaking and well reasons order in the light of available material without
holding trial or mini trial of the controversy. 2008 YLR 2301.
 10- DIRECTION CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF
OFFENCES.
A- No powers had been vested in the Justice of the Peace to pass order for insertion of
appropriate/specific sections of law in the FIR. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 873.

B- Under the provisions of section 9(7) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006,
deletion or insertion of any offence falls within the exclusive domain of the District Prosecutor. Question
whether the District Prosecutor had rightly deleted section would be seen by the trial Court at the time of
framing the charge, such fact cannot be challenged either under section 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C., or in
constitution jurisdiction of High Court. PLD 2008 Lah 135.

C- Under the provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act,
2006, the Prosecutor General, appointed under section 6 of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act,
2006 can also add or delete any offence.

D- Justice of Peace cannot make an observation with regard to the nature of offence or direct
addition or deletion of a penal provision as some exclusive as same exclusively fell within the domain of
I.O. before the challan is submitted. 2008 YLR 2017, 2007 P.Cr.L.J 124, 2006 YLR 2772.

E- No power s had been vested in the Justice of the Peace to pass order for insertion of
appropriate/specific sections of law in the FIR. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 873.

11- IMPOSING FINE BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

A- Direction given to the SHO by Ex-officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceeding against
petitioner under section 182, PPC is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C, and in excess of
jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law. PLD 2007 Lah 53.

B- Sessions Court was neither justified nor empowered to impose fine/costs upon the petitioner
while rejecting the petition filed under section 22-A Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 Kar. 638.

C- Secessions Judge, in circumstances, is not competent to direct initiation of proceedings

against petitioner under section 182, PPC. 2004 P.Cr.L.J.256.

12- DIRECTIONS REGARDING CANCELLATION OF FIR OR HOLDING

DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES.
A- Prayer by respondent before Sessions Judge regarding cancellation of FIR after holding an
inquiry in that respect could not be granted by Sessions Judge acting in his capacity as ex-officio Justice
of the peace. Other prayer of respondent regarding holding of a departmental inquiry against
petitioner/complainant also could not be granted by ex-officio Justice of the Peace because that was a
matter which was already being taken by departmental hierarchy. 2005 MLD 908.

B- The quashing or cancellation of the cross-version shall be subject to the same legal and factual
limitations as are relevant for the quashing of the formal FIR. The Criminal Procedure Code has laid
down exhaustive procedure for the registration and investigating of the cases as well as their trial after
submission of the challan before the Court. They should not be allowed to be hampered against the
procedure laid down in that behalf. PLD 2009 Lah 8.

13- RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.

 Justice of Peace is not supposed to decide the rights of the parties. He is not supposed to pass
judicial judgment. 2011 P.Cr.L.J.913.

14- JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.

A- Justice of Peace is not supposed to decide the rights of the parties he is not supposed to pass
judicial judgment. 2011 P.Cr. L.J. 913.

B- Where Justice of the Peace while disposing of the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. had
discussed and touched the merits of the case in detail, which was not required as the same would
definitely prejudice the proceedings before the trial court, such observations of the Justice of the Peace
were ordered by the High Court to be expunged. High Court directed that in the interest of justice, the
trial of the case should be conducted by another Trial Court. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 383.

C- Justice of the Peace being not a court had no authority or jurisdiction to offer special oath on
the asking of the parties. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 776.
D- An ex-officio Justice of the Peace cannot arrogate to himself the powers of redressing the
actual grievance itself. PLD 2005 Lah 470.
E- Restoration of possession and registration of criminal case cannot be sought on one and the
same application court below did not fulfill the formalities required under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C and under
the illegal disposition Act, 2005 and passed order without Framing the charge or holding inquiry. 2011
YLR 861.

F- The Justice of the Peace could issue orders for registration of a case on an application under
Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. against the respondent but could not direct the police to interfere in the
possession of the property. PLD 2006 Lah 460.

15- SURETY BOND FROM BOTH THE PARTIES.

Justice of the Peace on the basis of an allegation leveled by the complainant in an application
under section 22-A Cr.P.C. without considering the requirements as mandate under section 107 and 151,
Cr.P.C directed the SHO to proceed against the parties, therefore, impugned order to the extent of
direction to the SHO for obtaining surety bond from both the parties and taking preventive measures
under section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C was set aside. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 1082.

16- FALSE COMPLAINANT

If the complainant is found to have lodged a false report, a case can be registered against him
under section 182 P.P.C, or any other action could be initiated against him according to law. Section 154,
Cr.P.C, secures the inherent right of hearing of a citizen and it bestows a sacred duty upon State
machinery established in every police to register the cognizable grievance of citizen. PLD 2008 Pesh. 53.

17- POWERS TO ALTER OR RECTIFY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 22-A, Cr.P.C.
A- High Court has got inherent powers to alter or rectify its order if any ambiguity had been
created therein or any point which should have been thoroughly considered at the time of passing the
order on the Revision. Sessions Court was neither justified nor empowered to impose fine/costs upon the
petitioner while rejecting the petition filed under section 22-A Cr.P.C. While maintaining its order,
recalled and altered the same to the extent that imposition of fine by the Sessions Court was not justified
and such part of its order was set aside. PLD 2005 Kar. 638.

B- Functions and directions of the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace being not of judicial nature but
being administrative and ministerial in nature, could neither be challenged under Sections 435/439,
Cr.P.C nor under Article 199 of the Constitution and the same could be challenged only under S. 561-A,
Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 kar.621.
C- Any order passed by Justice of Peace is subject to scrutiny on judicial side by Superior Court
of Pakistan, therefore, administrative legal forum is required to disposed an application under sections 22-
A and 22-B Cr.P.C, by means of speaking and well reasons order in the light of available material without
holding trial or mini trial of the controversy. 2008 YLR 2301.

18- ALTERNATE ADEQUATE REMEDY WITH THE AGGRIEVED

PARTY.
A- Application under Sections 22-A and 22-B was dismissed by justice of peace and the order
was maintain by single Judge of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Appellant
had adequate alternative remedy by filing a private complaint in respect of allegations being leveled
against respondent. ICA dismissed. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 3906.

B- Private complaint is an alternative and efficacious remedy and Magistrate seized of the
complaint can inquire the matter himself or might direct an inquiry to be conducted by Justice of the
Peace or by a police officer. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 1870.

C- SHO not supporting registration of case. If such in report can be falsified, it would be
appropriate for him to file a private complaint before Court of competent jurisdiction instead of running
after police who was not prepared to accept his contention. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction, after
recording convincing evidence of petitioner, could issue summons against respondents and if found them
guilty, could punish them in accordance with law. 2005 P.Cr.L.J.1579, 2005 P.Cr.L.J.997.

C- If the police were not favorably inclined towards the petitioner/complainant on account of any
interest in the accused persons, they were likely to spoil her case in the first few Zimnies which they were
bound to record after registration of the case. Issuing a direction for registration of case, in such
circumstances, would not serve any useful purpose and the insistence of the petitioner (complainant) to
get a criminal case registered would be quite unrealistic. According to the dictates of remedy by filing a
private complaint directly before the Magistrate would be more effective and appropriate. 2005
P.Cr.L.J.1517.

D- Petitioner wanted to set forth a version regarding the manner in which the incident took place
which was in fact supplementation and amplification of the version recorded earlier. The petitioner might
file a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, which is one of the modes of taking cognizance of an
offence by Magistrate. 2011 P.Cr.L.J.1870.

E- Appellant having alternate remedy by way of filling a private complaint. PLD 2007 SC 539,
2011 P.Cr.L.J 396.

F- Experience shows that there are cases where the complainant party may be better off in
pressing its allegations and remaining in control of its case by filing a private complaint rather than
forcing the police to register a criminal case and to investigate when the police is itself not convinced of
the complainant party’s allegations. The impression entertained by large section of the legal community
in Pakistan that in case of filing of a private complaint the accused person cannot be arrested and recovery
cannot be affected from him is nothing but erroneous and fallacious. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

19- RESULT/OUT COME OF THE AMENDMENT IN Cr.P.C.

A- The result is a major departure, from the scheme heretofore in vogue regarding the
administration of justice relating to crimes as it was for the first time that through the said amending
ordinance, the Sessions Judges and the Additional Sessions Judges who were the trial and the Appellate
Courts on the criminal side, had been called upon to also supervise what were, purely and essentially, the
police functions i-e the registration and investigation of criminal cases. PLD 2007 SC 539.

B- In many cases, the Justice of the peace conveniently ignored the allotted sphere of their
jurisdiction conferred upon them by under the three clauses of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. and
indulge in deep interference into the police inquiry / investigation as well as jurisdiction conferred upon it
by different provisions of Cr.P.C. Criminal justice system had been divided into three phases viz,
investigation phase followed by inquiry phase and the final stage related to the trial phase. For all the
three phases, different authorities like police, Illaqa Magistrate and Sessions Court had been constitute
and established by the law; and their respective authorities/powers had been clearly defined; and a line of
demarcation in between the three phases had been drawn with much clarity. Object and intent of the
legislature behind scheme was that all the three authorities would not interfere into the allotted field of
jurisdiction of one another. PLD 2007 SC 539, 2010 P.Cr.L.J.45.

C- If in their capacity as ex-officio Justice of the Peace judicial officers like Sessions Judges and
Additional Sessions Judges are allowed to play a proactive, hands-on and upbeat role of direct
interference in the administrative working of the police then such executive role of judicial officer may
militate against the constitutional mandate of separation of the judiciary from the Executive enshrined in
the Article 173(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.PLD 2005 Lah 470.

D- The learned Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges have been conferred powers under
section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C to lessen the burden of High Court but apparently, it seems it has
increased. The purpose of empowering Sessions Judges is being stultified and baulked. 2005 P.Cr.L.J
607.

20- BASIC PRINCIPAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A- Entire criminal justice system revolves around the basic principal that no offence should go
unchecked and no offender should go unpunished. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

21- QUASI JUDICAIL POWERS

A- According to a recent judgment dated 12-02-2016, passed by the August Supreme Court, the
orders passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of peace are quasi judicial in nature and cannot be termed as
executive, administrative, or ministrial.
22 SEPARATION OF POWERS
A- Criminal Justice System has been divided into three phase’s viz, investigation phase followed
by inquiry phases and the final stage related to the prior phase. Object and intent of the legislature behind
such scheme is that all the three authorities would not interfere into the allotted field of
jurisdiction of one another. Justice of peace under no circumstances would interfere with such matter and
be left to the authorities both executive and judicial constituted hereunder. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 45.
B- Executives are not supposed to interfere in the affairs of judiciary any manner. PLD 2008 SC
522.