Justice of Peace

Subsequently, the owner of the vehicle in question filed an application under S. 516-A, Cr.P.C before the Trial Court for release of vehicle; initially the same was withdrawn and subsequently fresh application was filed, which was allowed, whereby the Trial Court, while utilizing the powers and jurisdiction as an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner concerned to initiate a criminal case by means of lodging FIR against the petitioner/Investigation Officer of the case under Ss.403 and 409, P.P.C

Validity

In the case in hand, no complaint had been filed against the petitioner rather an application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for release of vehicle was filed before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, wherein neither any complaint was filed or pending against the petitioner nor any such relief was sought against the petitioner for registering FIR against him

Impugned order had been passed by the Trial Court in the capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace without holding an enquiry and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, giving directions to the higher hierarchy of the petitioner's department for lodging of FIR, which was contrary to the scheme of law

Besides, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not a Judicial Magistrate, who could take cognizance upon his own knowledge or information communicated to him

However, any order passed by a Court in the capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace should be respected as the same was passed by him; while performing a quasi-judicial function, but only in a case, when a complaint was made before him in writing for excess committed by a levies/police official/officer

Without any application or complaint before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, he could not pass an order against any levies/police officer

In such a situation, it would be appropriate to provide the said levies officer an opportunity to clarify his position by holding an inquiry by himself or through some other authority

Any suggestion or direction given by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is required to be respected similar to a judicial order and should be followed in letter and spirit, otherwise the person disobeying the same may expose himself for appropriate action as per law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Under section 22-A, Cr.P.C, it is not the function of the Justice of Peace to punctiliously or assiduously scrutinize the case or to render any findings on merits but he has to ensure whether, from the facts narrated in the application, any cognizable case is made out or not; and if yes, then he can obviously issue directions that the statement of the complainant be recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C.

Such powers of the Justice of Peace are limited to aid and assist in the administration of the criminal justice system

He has no right to assume the role of an investigating agency or a prosecutor but has been conferred with a role of vigilance to redress the grievance of those complainants who have been refused by the police officials to register their reports

If the Justice of Peace will assume and undertake a full-fledged investigation and enquiry before the registration of FIR, then every person will have to first approach the Justice of Peace for scrutiny of his complaint and only after clearance, his FIR will be registered, which is beyond the comprehension, prudence, and intention of the legislature

Minute examination of a case and conducting a fact-finding exercise is not included in the functions of a Justice of Peace but he is saddled with a sense of duty to redress the grievance of the complainant who is aggrieved by refusal of a Police Officer to register his report.

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, while holding contrary to the police report, was supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon the solicited police report.

Justice of Peace does not have power to try a criminal offence and is only an administrative officer.

Word "may" in S.22-A(6) Cr.P.C. manifested the intention of Legislature that Justice of Peace was still left with discretion to pass an order for registration of F.I.R. only in appropriate/certain cases.

Justice of Peace, in Pakistan, was conferred additional role in respect of entertaining complaints and issuance of appropriate directions to police authorities concerned regarding registration of criminal cases, transfer of investigation of criminal cases and in respect of neglect, failure or excess committed by police authority in relation to its functions and duties

Rationale behind conferring of powers upon Justice of Peace under the Code was to enable aggrieved person to approach court of Justice of Peace for redressal of his grievances i.e., non-registration FIRs, excess of police, transfer of investigation to courts situated at district level or session or at particular sessions division

Main purpose of enactment was to create a forum at doorstep of people for their convenience and instead of invoking or approaching High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, public would have access to courts situated at their respective districts for redressal of their grievances provided under S.22-A(6) Cr.P.C.

Office of Justice of Peace was created under S. 22 of the Cr.P.C. and Justice of Peace's powers in respect of documentation were mentioned in S. 22-A(5) of the Cr.P.C., and said law had not given powers to the Justice of Peace to issue an "heirship certificate"

Justice of Peace could issue residential certificate to a person residing in his local area or attest documents, but he had no power to issue an "heirship certificate".

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed SHO to record statement of complainant and if cognizable case was made out register FIR against alleged accused persons

Alleged accused persons filed application for recalling the order of Justice of Peace under S. 21 General Clauses Act, 1897 which was dismissed by Justice of Peace

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing impugned order failed to discharge his duties as per the settled principles of law which were declared as void, illegal and of no consequence.

If there was no yardstick before the Justice of Peace, he would not be able to make an appropriate order in the case brought before him under the provisions of S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., which had provided alternate and additional forum for redressal of grievance of public-at-large; keeping in view the complaints regarding non-cooperation of the Police

Forum of the Justice of Peace had to proceed under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., and had to keep in mind certain principles for making an 'appropriate order'

If there was no yardstick and principles provided by the statute for exercising the authority by Justice of Peace, then it would not only be impossible for the forum to make appropriate order while exercising discretion, but would also be difficult for the superior forum/court to determine, whether discretion was exercised judicially, fairly or suggest extraneous consideration

Provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C., in fact controlled the discretion of Justice of Peace, which had been vested upon him

Expression "every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence", had been used in S.154, Cr.P.C.

Word "relating" was important and significant, not only in order to settle the controversy in the present case, but in all cases which were brought before the Police or before the Justice of Peace

Information, put either before the officer incharge of a Police Station, or the Justice of Peace, should provide information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offence

Requirement of S.154, Cr.P.C. was not that there must be information regarding actual commission of cognizable offence

Allegations contained in application made by complainant were to be examined, but not in depth and detail to avoid prejudice to the case of any of the parties during the course of investigation or trial.

Contention of the petitioner was that respondents by preparing a forged arbitration agreement had committed an offence under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471, P.P.C.

Application for registration of FIR was dismissed by the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge

Validity

Civil dispute between the parties with regard to partition of Shamilat property was on record

Petitioner had turned a civil dispute into criminal proceedings just to continue his possession over a piece of land

If a property dispute in arbitration agreement or award on any ground had been raised then a specific remedy under Ss. 30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was available to the petitioner

Dispute with regard to property had been referred to the arbitrators

None of the persons except petitioner after 13 years of execution, initiated proceedings for the registration of FIR against respondents

Averments made by the petitioner had not been supported by other executant of such arbitration agreement/award

Petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek grievance before the competent court of law

Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that Station House Officer snatched cash and other valuables from his brother, detained him in police lockup and demanded cash for his release

Station House Officer informed complainant that his brother had been detained as an F.I.R. was registered against him

Complainant moved application before Justice of Peace under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. against Station House Officer but same was dismissed

Contention of complainant was that Justice of Peace had touched upon minor details of the matter despite the fact that deeper appreciation was not warranted in law

Validity

Perusal of order of Justice of Peace showed that matter had been scrutinized minutely which was not the requirement of law

Impugned order of Justice of Peace showed that application was turned down mainly on the ground that a case was registered against the brother of complainant by the Station House Officer and accused intended to lodge proposed F.I.R. against police personnel with mala fide intention to harass the said Station House Officer from discharging his lawful duty

Question as to whether there was mala fide on part of the accused for lodging of F.I.R. or not could only be determined after recording statement of complainant

Deeper appreciation at the time of registration of F.I.R. was not required

Application was allowed, order of Justice of Peace was set aside and Station House Officer (SHO) was directed to register F.I.R. if from the statement of complainant cognizable offence was made out.

Where Justice of Peace formed his independent opinion from the facts narrated to him by the complainant that a cognizable offence had been made out; the Justice of Peace was bound to issue directions to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) for recording of F.I.R.

Where Justice of Peace formed his independent opinion from the facts narrated to him by the complainant that a cognizable offence had been made out; the Justice of Peace was bound to issue directions to the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) for recording of F.I.R.