P L D 2025 Peshawar 206 (PLP)

INAM ULLAH KHAN, J.

This judgment addresses the aforementioned two writ petitions concerning a common legal and factual issue. The petitions stem from orders issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Dera Ismail Khan, on 07.03.2024 and 19.12.2023. These orders directed the local police to register criminal cases based on applications filed under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C.

2. The instant petition arises from the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, D.I. Khan, dated March 7, 2024, and December 19, 2023. These orders allowed the application of Inam Ullah (Respondent No. 3), filed under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C., directing the local police to consider his daily diary report as a cross-version in a case already registered by the FIA authority. Respondent No. 3 alleged that on June 21, 2023, while he was at his shop on Chashma Road near Sheikh Yousaf Adda, D.I. Khan, along with his uncle Baz Muhammad, the petitioners arrived in two vehicles, armed with firearms. They allegedly abused and assaulted his uncle, stole Rs. 1,600,000 from the shop, took important documents, and forcibly snatched mobile phones and Rs. 5,000 from his pocket. They then abducted his uncle. Respondent No. 3 claimed that he reported the incident the same day via daily diary No. 22, but no action was taken. Consequently, he approached the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, leading to the issuance of the impugned orders.

3. The connected W.P. No. 597-D/2024 arises from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, D.I. Khan, dated 07.03.2024. Through this order, the respondent No. 5, Rizwan Ullah's application under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. was allowed, directing the local police to consider his report as a cross-version in a case already registered by the FIA. Respondent No. 5 stated in his application that on 21.06.2023, at approximately 01:00 to 01:30 p.m., the petitioners entered his shop in Makka Market while he was absent. Allegedly, they assaulted his private employees, Muhammad Tufail and Didan Gul, and forcibly took Rs. 2,950,000/- from them, though the recorded amount was shown as Rs. 503,200/-. Upon approaching the SHO, Police Station Saddar, D.I. Khan, for case registration, his request was refused, prompting him to file an application under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The petitioners, FIA officials, registered FIR No. 29/2023 at FIA Police Station, D.I. Khan, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 109 of the P.P.C., alleging that the respondents' party was running an illegal Hundi/Hawala business. In response, the private respondents sought the registration of an FIR against the petitioners under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. The Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace ruled that their applications disclosed a cognizable offense but, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Mst Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595), directed the police to treat the respondents' reports as a cross-version of the already registered FIA case.

6. In the instant case the FIR has already been registered by the FIA against the respondents' party. The learned Ex- Officio Justice of the Peace vide impugned orders directed the SDPO/DSP Saddar Circle to investigate the allegations of the private respondents as cross version. Both the investigation agencies are working in different spheres and their domain of power of investigation are different. The primary question here is whether an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace has the authority to club a complaint as a cross-version when the FIR has already been registered by the FIA (Federal Investigation Agency). Additionally, if such clubbing is possible, how the trial would proceed given the different jurisdictions of investigative agencies.

1. Jurisdiction of FIA v. Local Police. The FIA operates under its special laws, including the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, and is primarily responsible for investigating offenses related to federal statutes, including cyber-crimes, financial frauds, human trafficking, and offenses under special laws. On the other hand, local police operate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) for general criminal offenses. Since both agencies function in different spheres, the clubbing of a complaint as a cross-version in a case already registered under FIA's domain raises legal and procedural complications.

2. Powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C.). The Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., has the power to direct police officials to register an FIR if a cognizable offense is made out. However, this power generally applies to local police and does not automatically extend to specialized investigation agencies like FIA, NAB, or ANF unless a particular law permits it. Moreover, cross-version cases are typically entertained where both versions fall under the same jurisdiction (i.e., within the police domain). The Justice of the Peace may have overstepped jurisdiction by directing that an FIA registered FIR be clubbed with another complaint as a cross-version case when the agencies have separate investigative mandates. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) clarified that multiple FIRs in the same case are not permissible and that only a separate private complaint may be filed. Furthermore, the Lahore High Court in Ali Raza v. Additional Sessions Judge (PLD 2020 Lahore 109) held that cross-versions are generally entertained only where both versions fall under the same jurisdiction, meaning that the Justice of the Peace cannot direct local police to investigate a case already registered under FIA' s jurisdiction.

3. Can cross-version be clubbed with an FIA case? Legally, an FIA case cannot be merged with a case investigated by local police since both agencies derive their authority from different legal frameworks. A few key considerations include:

1. Nature of Offense: If the case registered by FIA involves an offense under a special federal law, local police cannot assume jurisdiction.

2. Investigation Protocol: FIA follows its own procedure and is not bound by Cr.P.C. provisions applicable to local police investigations.

3. Trial Forum: FIA cases are tried in Special Courts (Sessions Court or FIA Courts), while cases under police jurisdiction go before ordinary criminal courts. Thus, unless the allegations in the cross-version complaint relate to the same federal law under which the FIA FIR is registered, the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace lacks jurisdiction to order such clubbing. In Mian Allah Nawaz v. The State (2019 SCMR 2009), the Supreme Court reinforced that an investigative agency cannot interfere with matters outside its jurisdiction, thereby reaffirming the independence of FIA's investigative mandate. Similarly, in Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 16), it was held that FIA' s jurisdiction remains distinct from that of local police, and clubbing a local police investigation with an FIA case would create procedural conflicts.

4. How would the trial be conducted if clubbing were allowed? If, hypothetically, clubbing were allowed (e.g., through intervention by the High Court or a legal provision allowing consolidation of cases), the following issues would arise:

1. Forum Conflict: Would the trial proceed in an FIA Special Court or in a Session's Court? The two courts have different procedural rules.

2. Separate Investigation: FIA and local police follow different investigation protocols, creating evidentiary complications.

3. Trial Proceedings: Cross-version cases are usually tried together only when they fall under the same jurisdiction (i.e., both cases investigated by the same agency). Given these complexities, it is legally untenable to club an FIA case with a local police case as a cross-version unless there is a special direction from a High Court or Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in State v. Haji Naseer (PLD 2022 SC 347) reiterated that procedural fairness necessitates maintaining distinct jurisdictions for different investigative agencies, preventing overlap or conflicts in trials.

5. Conclusion

1. The Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace does not have the authority to club a complaint as a cross-version with an FIA registered FIR, as both agencies have separate jurisdictions.

2. If both parties have allegations, separate FIRs and trials will proceed unless the High Court intervenes to consolidate cases on legal grounds.

3. If clubbing were allowed, the procedural and jurisdictional conflicts would pose significant legal hurdles in conducting the trial. Thus, the impugned orders directing the SDPO/DSP Saddar Circle to investigate the reports of the private respondents as a cross-version in an FIA case appears to be beyond jurisdiction.

7. For the reasons stated above, this and the connected writ petition are allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the learned Ex- Officio Justice of the Peace stand set aside. However, the private respondents may, if so advised, have recourse to other alternative remedy of filing private complaint. JK/112/P Petitions allowed.