Adam Rafique Versus The State through Advocate General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

1. Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J .---

2. Foreward:

3. The captioned application has been filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for setting aside impugned order dated 13.03.2025 recorded by learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Bhimber.

4. STANCE OF THE PETITIONER:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that under section 22-A Cr.P.C. the learned Justice of Peace has got no jurisdictional competence to direct the investigating agency for adding or substituting any particular offence rather Justice of Peace can give directions in certain other matters i.e. for registration of FIR, for change of investigation from one officer to another and for fair investigation to the investigating agency, which are mentioned in the relevant statute, hence, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that impugned order may be nullified.

6. REFUTATION OF THE RESPONDENTS:

7. The learned counsel for private respondent contended that under section 22-A(6) (iii) Cr.PC. the learned Justice of Peace may direct the investigating agency to insert or delete any particular offence, hence, requested that petition may be dismissed.

8. The learned AAG frankly conceded that the impugned order is without any jurisdictional competence by the learned Justice of Peace.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case with utmost care and caution.

10. COURT OBERVATIONS AND RELEVANT LAW:

11. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Justice of Peace has got no jurisdictional competence to direct investigating agency to insert or delete a particular offence, has got valid substance because as per law Justice of Peace cannot give directions to the investigating agency for insertion of a particular offence though the Justice of Peace has got an authority to give certain other directions but has got no jurisdiction to issue such type of direction as given in the instant case. Reliance may be placed on 2016 PCr.LJ 771 and 2004 YLR 2266. Hence, the impugned order being coram non judice is a nullity in the eye of law, thus, not sustainable.

12. CONCLUSION:

13. The crux and epitome of the above debate is, the captioned petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order is hereby set at naught.

14. JK/26/AJK H.C Petition allowed.