MUHAMMAD JAVAID KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN and 2

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 22-6-2006 handed down by Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, as Justice of Peace, on an application moved by Muhammad Jamshaid respondent No,3. The grievance voiced through this petition is that while disposing of the said petition the learned Justice of Peace, recorded the following observations:- "However, I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Where fire is made straight, section 324, P.P.C. Would be attracted and the offender shall in addition to imprisonment and fine under section 324, P.P.C., , would also be liable to punishment provided for the hurt caused which fact may be brought to the notice of the S.P. (Investigation). The petitioner is directed to appear before him with a copy of this order and place his grievance before him. With this direction the application is disposed of."

' Which observation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is against law.

2. The object of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Is only that if a grievance is voiced with regard to non- registration of F.I.R. In a cognizable offence, the Justice of Peace in terms of said section can only direct/suggest as to whether in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. Concerned S.H.O. Has acted legally or illegally and in case he has refused to act, whether his inaction is justified, but under no provision of law, the Justice of Peace can direct or even observe with regard to the nature of the offence, commission of the offence or addition or deletion of relevant sections as the same exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of either Investigation Officer or of the trial Court at the time of framing charge. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court Khizar Hayat and others v. I.-G.

Punjab and others PLD 2005 Lah. 470 and Sheikh Muhammad Shahzad v. Naveed Anwar Sethi and 4 others PLD 2006 Lah.

460.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 on the other hand contends that the order impugned in this writ petition does not indicate that same is a mandatory direction but it only contains observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace. Further contends that irrespective of the observations of the learned Justice of Peace, the matter is now before the District Investigation Board who is fully competent to decide the fate of the investigation in view of the Police Order, 2002 as such the respondent would not press for addition of section 324, P.P.C. On the basis of observations of the learned Justice of Peace. However, he reserves his right to place his case before the District Investigation Board and said Board shall be free to decide as to under which of the section of P.P.C. The petitioner is incited and prosecuted.

4. In view of the above legal position as well as the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No,3, this petition is disposed of.