Zeeshan vs The State and others
This criminal writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby a direction was issued to the SHO for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in ordering the registration of an FIR when the contents of the application did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and lacked corroborative material. The Peshawar High Court held that the Justice of Peace is under a legal obligation to examine whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence before ordering registration of an FIR, and since the complaint failed to disclose a cognizable offence and was contradicted by affidavits of court personnel and lack of CCTV footage, the impugned order was unsustainable. The court laid down the principle that a Justice of Peace cannot direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 unless the application discloses a cognizable offence.
- Whether a Justice of Peace is bound to verify if an application discloses a cognizable offence before directing the registration of an FIR?
- Can an order passed by a Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR be set aside through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
- Is the registration of an FIR warranted when the allegations in the complaint are uncorroborated and contradicted by independent staff affidavits and CCTV footage?
- Article 199, The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
JUDGM ENT
M UHAM M AD IJAZ KHAN, J. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners seek the quashment of the order/judgment dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Haripur, whereby, the application of respondent No.1 for registration of FIR, was allowed and the SHO was directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law and to do the needful.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as spelling out from the contents of this petition are that initially, the respondent No.1 namely Muhammad Nawaz had filed an application to the SHO of Police Station, TIP Haripur, for registration of the FIR against the present petitioner, however, his request was not acceded to, therefore, he moved an application under section 22-A Cr. P.C to the learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Haripur, and after hearing learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Justice of Peace vide impugned order dated 02.03.2024 directed the respondent No.4/SHO to register the FIR against .the present petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has now approached to this Court by filing the instant constitutional petition for the quashment of said order.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record with their valuable assistance.
4. The record would show that the present petitioner was performing his duty as Naib Court in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Haripur, and the present respondent/complainant namely Muhammad Nawaz, who was present in the court premises while pursuing another case. The contents of the application filed under Section 22-A Cr.P.C were gone through, however, we could not gathered that the same speaks of commission of any cognizable offence having been committed and the said allegations made in the complaint have also been refuted/controverted by the other personnel, who were present in the court premises including the Incharge of security namely Wisal Ahmad. It was also noted that five (05) other officials of the court have also submitted their affidavits to the effect that they were performing their duties in the court, however, no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the learned Justice of Peace has wrongly ordered for the registration of FIR against the present petitioner, especially when it is seen that the plea of the respondent/complainant is not supported by statement of any other person nor CCTV footage were found in line with the Allegation of the respondent/complainant.
5. It is well settled that if an application is submitted to learned Judge of Peace for registration of FIR, the learned Justice of Peace is under obligation to see whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence or not, if it does then he is bound to issue direction to the SHO to register an FIR, if not such direction could not be issued, however, learned Justice of Peace has passed the impugned order which is against the aforesaid settled jurisprudence, thus, the same necessitates interference of this court.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of learned Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Haripur, dated 02.03.2024 is set aside, however, the respondent-complainant shall be at liberty to approach to the proper forum through an appropriate remedy.