ABDUL QADOOS and another vs SARWAR KHAN and 2 others
This criminal revision petition was filed against an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, acting as a Justice of Peace, directing the registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioners under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners challenged the order on the grounds that it was passed without notice to them and that the requirements for registration were not met. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is amenable to revision before the High Court. The Court held that a Justice of Peace, when exercising powers under Section 22-A(6), acts in an administrative capacity rather than as a court subordinate to the High Court. Consequently, the Court determined that such an order cannot be challenged through a criminal revision petition. The petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the petitioners were at liberty to seek alternative constitutional remedies if they so desired.
- Is an order passed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to revision before the High Court?
- Does a Justice of Peace act in a judicial or administrative capacity when ordering the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Abdul Qudoos and Abdur Rashid sons of Rustam, Caste Wazir, residents of Nar Abu-Samand Khaisor, Serai Naurang, District Lakki Marwat have filed the present criminal revision under section 439 read with section 561-A, Cr .P.C. Against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakki Marwat vide which he, while acting as Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., has ordered the registration of F.I.R., against the petitioners and resultantly on the directions of the learned Justice of Peace case F.I.R., No,77 dated 19-3-2008 Police Station Naurang, District Lakki Marwat was registered against the petitioners.
2. Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that Sarwar Khan son of Jaffer Khan, respondent No,1, moved an application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. For the registration of case against the petitioners. A direction was sought to be issued to the S.H.O. Police Station Naurang, District Lakki Marwat to do the needful as he was avoiding to register a case.
3. The allegations as contained in the application were that on 18-3-2008 at 3 p.m. The complainant was present in the landed property of Ikramullah Kundi along with the owner of the land; that in the mean time the petitioners came and started firing at the complainant. However, he escaped unhurt. Resultantly, he approached the concerned S.H.O. For registration of the case but the concerned Police Officer refused to register the case and hence, application aforesaid was moved to the learned Sessions Judge which was marked to Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakki Marwat. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakki Marwat, after hearing the complainant and perusing the data annexed with the petition, vide the impugned order dated 25-3-2008, ordered the S.H.O. Concerned to register the case and hence, the instant criminal revision petition by petitioners Abdul Qadoos etc.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted written arguments. It was submitted that the learned Justice of Peace has, without issuing a notice to the petitioners, ordered registration of the case. It was further argued that an F.I.R. Can only be registered under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C.
When there are allegations of cognizable offence and when the police officials refuse to register the case, then resort can be made to this provision of law for issuance of a direction to the concerned police official to register a case.
5. On the other hand, respondent No,1 submitted that there are allegations which warrant the registration of the case and all the allegations taken together constitute a cognizable offence.
6. I have gone through available record of the case and have applied my mind to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Justice of Peace is not in stricto senso a Court subordinate to this Court as it acts in administrative capacity and the order passed by the Justice of Peace cannot be impugned in revision petition before this Court as held in Pir Abdul Qayyum Shah v. S.H.O. And 4 others 2005 PCr.LJ 357.
8. Thus, on tentative assessm ent of the record and the law laid down in the case referred to above, no interference can be made with the impugned order through the instant revision petition which is hereby dismissed along with Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.48 of 2008 and 65 of 2008. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to seek their remedy under the Constitution, if so advised in the matter.