2021 M L D 994
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
MUHAMMAD AYUB ---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -VII/JUSTICE OF PEACE, QUETTA and others ---
Respondents
C.P. No.1377 of 2019, decided on 21st December, 2020.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----
----Ss. 22 -A & 25 ---Powers exercised by ex -officio Justice of Peace under S.22 -A(6),
Cr.P.C. ---Issuing appropriate directions for registration of FIR or transfer of investigation or
to check neglect, failure or excesses committed by police authorities --- Adjudication of
application under S.22- A, Cr.P.C. by Ex- Officio Justice of Peace--- Scope ---While exercising
powers under S.22- A, Cr.P.C., Justice of Peace was not supposed to proceed and act
mechanical ly by simply considering version of events narrated by party applying for
registration of FIR, but instead, in order to safeguard against abuse of process, Justice of
Peace must apply his / her mind and satisfy himself that prima facie there existed some
material available on record to support such version---Such powers under S.22- A of Cr.P.C.,
were quasi -judicial in nature and were not executive, administrative or ministerial but instead
exercise of such powers demanded discretion, and judicial observation after granting hearing
to parties involved.
Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581
rel.
Muhammad Naseem Quresh for Petitioner.
Ahsan Rafique Rana for Respondents Nos.5 and 6.
Muhammad Younus Mengal, Assistant Pr osecutor General ("APG") for the State.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ----The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayer: -
"In view of above made humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the fake
medical opinion dated 11.07.2018 may kindly be canceled and order dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Quetta, may kindly be set aside and
the application moved before trial court may kindly be ordered to be allowed, in the interest of justice".
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (Dr. Muhammad Arif son of Haji
Muhammad Umar) filed an application under section 22 -A, Cr.P.C., against the private
respondents before the learned Ex -Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge -VII,
Quetta, with the averments that the petitioner being a complainant in the FIR No.66 of 2018 for an offence under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. against the respondents Nos.2 to 6 at Police Station Gowalmandi and challan of the case was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Quetta. During the course of the trial, the petitioner's brother al so moved
an application to the Secretary and Director General, Government of Balochistan, Health Department, Quetta, for discarding findings of the Police Surgeon Medical Complex Hospital, Quetta, dated 11.07.2018, but the concerned officials never ever consider the application.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the issuance of fake/bogus report dated
11.07.2018 by the medical board, the petitioner's brother also issued a legal notice dated 21.02.2019 to the concerned board members including responde nt No.2, out of which two
members Dr. Ehsanullah Shah and Dr. Ahmed Shah replied the legal notice dated 20.03.2019 by stating that they have never ever issued any medical opinion or decided the MLC which also shows the mala fide intention and biasness of t he respondent No.2. It is alleged that the
said doctors/members who issued a fake report which caused great prejudice to the petitioner, but the respondent No.7 (SHO) did not lodge a report. The petitioner filed an
application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C., before the learned Ex -Officio Justice of
Peace/Additional Sessions Judge -VII, Quetta, and the same was dismissed on 20.11.2019,
whereafter the instant petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the argum ents in
the light of the law and facts on the record. In exercise of power under section 22- A, Cr.P.C.,
the Justice of Peace is not supposed to proceed and act mechanically by simply considering the version of events narrated by a party applying for regist ration, but instead, in order to
safeguard against misuse or abuse of such process, must apply his mind and satisfy himself that prima -facie, there is some material available on the record to support such version.
Reliance is placed in the case reported as Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions
Judge, Chakwal (PLD 2016 SC 581), wherein the following was observed:
"2. The past experience of around 14 years (since the insertion of these provisions into the Code of Criminal Procedure) would unmistakably reveal that these provisions especially Section 22 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though beneficial and
advantageous to the public at large, yet in myriad cases, it has been misused and abused.
Once a false criminal case is registered against an individual, it becomes exceedingly difficult for him/her to get rid of it. The time and money which is spent on acquiring a
clean chit by way of cancellation of the case or acquittal is not hard to fathom. There
is no denying the fact that at times false a nd frivolous cases are got registered just to
humble and harass the opposite party. In such a milieu, powers given to an ex- officio
Justice of the Peace under subsection (6) of Section 22- A, Code of Criminal
Procedure, to issue appropriate directions on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person
for registration of a criminal case (Clause -i) and for transfer of investigation from one
police officer to another (Clause -ii) though efficacious and expeditious besides being
at the doorstep, but at the same time, t hese provisions should not be unbridled or
open- ended. These provisions must be defined, structured and its contour delineated
to obviate misuse by influential and unscrupulous elements. Therefore: -
(i) The ex -officio Justice of the Peace, before issuance of a direction on a complaint
for the non- registration of a criminal case under subsection (6)(i) of section 22- A,
Code of Criminal Procedure must satisfy himself that sufficient material is available
on the record, such as application to the concerned S HO for registration of the
criminal case and on his refusal or reluctance, complaint to the higher police officers i.e. DPO, RPO etc., to show that the aggrieved person, before invoking the powers of ex-officio Justice of the Peace, had recourse to the hig h ups in the police hierarchy.
(ii) ... ... "
5. The logic behind the conferring of powers upon the Justice of Peace was to enable the
aggrieved person to approach the Justice of Peace for the redressal of his grievances, i.e. non- registration of FIR's, t ransfer of investigation to the courts situated at the district level or
Session or at particular Sessions Division. At times, this is being observed that the office of Justice of Peace is being misused by the litigants in order to settle their scores or s ometimes
to convert the civil litigation into criminal litigation and to use the powers under this section
to the damage of the rival party for certain ulterior motives, which was never the intention of the legislature.
Proceedings before Justice of Peace are quasi -judicial and are not executive,
administrative or ministerial to deal with the matters mechanically rather the same is quasi-judicial powers in every case before him demands discretion and judicial observations and that is too after hearing the parties.
6. Now dilating upon the merits of the instant petition, the petitioner claimed that the
private respondents filed an application before the medical board to challenge the MLC issued in favour of the brother of the petitioner, but subsequently whe n the brother of the
petitioner given legal notice to the concerned doctors/members who replied that they never issued any medical report in respect of certificate. It is important to mention here that brother of the petitioner filed an FIR No.66 of 2018 f or an offence under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. and
Police Surgeon Dr. Ali Mardan Mengal issued a medical certificate in his favour. The challan was submitted before the learned trial court and the same is fixed for prosecution evidence. The genuineness and a uthenticity of the medical board can be determined by the trial court in
FIR No.66 of 2018. In such circumstances, no case is made out for registration of the FIR.
The ground was taken by the petitioner in his application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C.,
appe ar to be whimsical and in this view of the matter the order passed by the learned Justice
of Peace is in accordance with the law, and there is no illegality, irregularity pointed out by
the petitioner; therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitione r is dismissed.
KMZ/28/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.