2009 PLP 1020 (MLD)

MALIK SAEED IJAZ, J.

Briefly the facts are that petitioner (Dilbar Hussain) moved an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu/Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case against certain respon dents and the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace after calling for report from the concerned Police, on 25-11-2008 passed the following order:-- "D.I.G./R.P.O. is directed to lodge F.I.R against Gulzar S.-I. Police Station City Khanewal and other delinquent police officials who are involved in case under Article 155-C of Police Order. Copy of this order and copy of this petition and other relevant documents Medico-legal Report are sent to the office of DIG/RPO, Multan." Through the instant petition, grievance of the petitioner is that despite above specific direction of learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, the case is not being registered.

2. Heard.

3. Without going through the allegations on the basis of which complaint under section "22-A, Cr.P.C. had been filed by the present petitioner, the moot point here is that once an explicit order is passed or a direction is issued by Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. and said order/direction is not challenged anywhere, in case of its non-compliance what should be the line of action for the person in whose favour the Ex-officio Justice of Peace passed such order?

4. Such an eventuality has not been left unattended by the Legislature and being mindful of such a situation, subsection (6)(i), (ii) and (iii) was inserted in section 22-A, Cr.P.C. by way of Code of Criminal Procedure (Third Amendment) Ordinance, CXXXI of 2002, on 21-11-2002. Now section 22-A (6), Cr.P.C. reads as under:-- "(6) An ex-officio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding

(i) Non-registration of a criminal case; (ii) Transfer of investigation from one police officer to another, and (iii) Neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties." As shall be seen from the above reproduced subsection (6)(iii), ex-officio Justice of Peace has been fully empowered to issue any direction to the police authorities concerned, wherever, any complaint about their neglect, failure or excess committed in relation to its functions and duties, is reported to it. In view of subsequent insertion of subsection (6), (i), (ii) and (iii) in section 22-A, Cr.P.C. its implication and impact is very much clear and this cannot be minimized by adopting any other interpretation except the purpose to vest further powers with the ex-officio Justice of Peace enabling him to get its own orders/ directions implemented. Therefore, when an order/direction of ex-officio Justice of Peace is not complied with in its true letter and spirit, the best and legal course for the aggrieved person is to move another complaint to the same ex-officio Justice of peace complaining non-compliance of its order and upon such complaint, as observed above, the concerned ex-officio Justice of peace is fully competent to issue further directions to the concerned District Police Officer by recommending penal action against such delinquent police officials/officers in terms of Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002. To be more precise, Articles 155(c) and 155(d) of the said Order, in fact deal with such like situations, according to which any police officer who "is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or of any rule or regulation or any order which he is bound to observe or obey;" and "is guilty of any violation of duty," would be exposed to penalty under the Police Order, 2002.

5. In view of the above discussions, recourse to this Court through its constitutional jurisdiction would not only mean unnecessarily burdening this Court but also amounts to sheer wastage of time and money of the poor litigants.

6. In view of above, this petition being deviation from above legal propositions, is dismissed. The petitioner, may if so advised, have recourse to the same ex-officio in above terms. H.B.T./D-6/L Petition dismissed.