IMTIAZ AHMED WARRIACH, RESIDENT OFFICER, BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA
This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the quashment of an order dated 3-2-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, acting as Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether an order directing a respondent to approach the Station House Officer to record a statement and proceed in accordance with law amounts to a mandatory direction for the compulsory registration of a criminal case. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order merely requires the police to record the statement and proceed in accordance with law, and does not expressly or impliedly direct the registration of a case under all circumstances. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that a direction by a Justice of Peace to the police to record a statement and proceed according to law does not inherently constitute an automatic command to register a first information report.
- Does an order by a Justice of Peace directing the police to record a statement and proceed in accordance with law amount to a mandatory direction for the registration of a criminal case?
- Whether a petition for quashment is maintainable against an order of a Justice of Peace that does not order the compulsory registration of a case?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner seeks quashment of order, dated 3-2-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan exercising his jurisdiction as Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. On an application moved by shazad Ahmad respondent No,3 directing him to approach S.H.O. Who shall record petitioner's statement and further proceed in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace in fact amounts to directing him for the registration of case whereas in the light of the comments/report submitted by the S.H.O. Neither the cognizable offence is made out nor such direction could have been issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without any material on the record. To support his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2003 MILD 714.
3. The impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 3-2-2007 has been perused. It only directs respondent No,3 to approach the S.H.O. Who will record his statement and proceed in accordance with law and such direction neither impliedly nor expressly can be taken as a direction for registration of case in all circumstances. This petition, therefore, is not maintainable and is disposed of as such.