JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

PESHAWAR.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No. 2508-P of 2018 with I.R.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing______________16-01-2019________

Petitioner (s) (Syed Abdul Hameed) By Mr. Younas Ahmad

Mohmand, Advocate

Respondent (s) (Mian Izhar Ahmad) By Syed Inayat Shah,

Advocate.
(State)…………….. By Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, Addl: A.G.

ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM.J- Syed Abdul

Hameed son of Syed Abdul Rasheed, the petitioner, has

invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court

under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic

of Pakistan, 1973, praying that;

“on acceptance of instant writ petition,

besides any other relief, the impugned
order dated 18.04.2018 passed by
respondent No.3/Justice of Peace, Mardan,
may kindly be set aside and respondent
No.2 may be directed to stop proceedings
against the petitioner.”
 2

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1

(Mian Izhar Ahmad) submitted an application under

section-22-A Cr.PC against the petitioner (Abdul

Hameed) before the Court of DSJ/Justice of Peace,

Mardan, for registration of criminal case under the

relevant law on the ground that on 01.11.2017 unknown

person called him on his mobile phone No.0313-9620021

and asked him to meet him without disclosing his

identity; that he asked him why to meet you, in reply he

gave him threats; that on 04.11.2017 he was riding on his

motorcycle Honda 125-CC bearing registration No.DGN-

3831 and when reached near FALCON School

Baghdada, four persons duly armed with weapons riding

on two motorcycles stopped him and aimed their pistols

and Kalashnikov, snatched his motorcycle, NIC card,

ATM card, cash amount of Rs.6000/- and threatened him

of dire consequences, if he disclosed the matter to any

one; that prior to the occurrence the accused gave him

threats on his phone that they are having his mobile data
 3

and are aware of his daily activities; that delay in lodging

his report was due to his arrest by local police of Police

Station “Jabbar”, and he was released from jail, he

submitted an application to the SHO Police Station Par

Hoti, Mardan, for lodging his report, but the SHO refused

to lodge his report; that his parents inquired about the cell

No.0313-9620021 and came to know that the said cell

number is registered in the name of Abdul Hameed, he

charged accused Abdul Hameed son of Abdul Rasheed

resident of Amazo Ghari and three others for snatching

his motorcycle and other articles on gun point and giving

him threats of dire consequences.

3. The learned Justice of Peace called comments

from SHO Police Station concerned, who submitted his

comments, wherein he denied the allegations of the

complainant Mian Izhar Ahmad, and also reported that

the complainant and respondent Abdul Hameed son of

Abdur Rashid are related interse; that against

complainant Mian Izhar Ahmad case FIR No.676 dated

 4

13.11.2017 under sections-380/457/411/414/201/202

PPC has been registered in Police Station Jabbar, District

Mardan; that upon his information, complainant Mian

Izhar Ahmed was arrested by Abdul Hameed (petitioner)

in the aforementioned case FIR. After hearing of learned

counsel for the complainant, and APP for the State were

heard and vide order dated 18.04.2018 the learned Justice

of Peace, directed the SHO PS concerned to register a

case against the private respondent No.2 in terms that;

“I view of the above, the application

submitted by applicant Mian Izhar Ahmad
under section-22-A Cr.PC is accepted.
SHO of Police Station Par Hoti, Mardan, is
directed to register a case according to the
contents of petition and fairly investigate
the same. Copy of the order be sent to SHO
of Police Station concerned for
compliance. Meanwhile, a copy of this
order be also sent to DPO and DP Mardan
for information and necessary action
accordingly.”

4. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 18.04.2018

passed by the learned Justice of Peace, Syed Abdul

 5

Hameed son of Syed Abdul Rasheed, the petitioner,

challenged the validity of the said order by filing the

instant writ petition before this Court.

5. The respondents were put on notice. Respondent

No.2 SHO Police Station Par Hoti, Mardan, submitted

reply to the writ petition and annexed herewith the copy

of relevant documents and FIR. As per contents of reply,

Syed Abdul Hameed, the petitioner, is constable in CTD,

performing the duty of Intelligence; that Mian Izhar

Ahmad (respondent No.2) was wanted to local police in

case FIR No.676 dated 13.11.2017 under sections-

380/457/411/401/402/414 PPC registered at Police

Station Jabbar; that upon information conveyed by the

petitioner, Mian Izhar Ahmad, respondent No.1, was

arrested by SHO Police Station Jabbar in the above cited

case FIR; that after his release from jail in order to take

revenge, Mian Izhar Ahmad has filed a complaint under

section-22-A Cr.PC before the Justice of Peace against

the petitioner.
 6

6. Valuable arguments of learned counsel for the

parties heard and available record gone through with

their able assistance.

7. Perusal of record reveals that complainant Mian

Izhar Ahmad, respondent No.1, who was wanted to the

local police of Police Station Jabbar in case FIR No.676

dated 13.11.2017 for offences under sections-

380/457/411/401/402/414 PPC, and he was arrested on

the information conveyed by Syed Abdul Hameed, who

is constable in CTD, Mardan. As per contents of

application under section-22-A Cr.PC submitted by the

complainant, motorcycle Honda 125CC bearing

registration No.DGN-3831, ATM card, CNIC and cash

amount of Rs.6000/- allegedly snatched from him by four

unknown persons on 04.11.2017, and he submitted

application to SHO Police Station Par Hoti, Mardan, for

registration of case FIR against the culprits, but he

refused. Record further reveals that Mian Pir Muhammad

Shah son of Mian Bahadar Shah lodged FIR No.676

 7

dated 13.11.2017 in Police Station Jabbar, wherein he

charged accused namely Izhar Ahmad alias Ali Arab

Raheel son of Zahoor Ahmad and Umar Khan son of

Javed Iqbal for stealing of golden ornaments weighing

35/40 tolas and cash amount of Rs.200,000/-. Vide Mad

No.5 dated 13.11.2017 accused Izhar Ahmad was

arrested by Tajbar Shah SHO during gasht on the

information conveyed by the informer in case FIR

No.676 dated 13.11.2017 registered at Police Station

Jabbar. On 29.11.2017 Mian Pir Muhammad Shah

recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.PC before

the Judicial Magistrate, wherein he also charged

Mst.Shadab and her mother (sister and mother of accused

Izhar Ahmad) for the commission of offence in terms

that;

“I earlier charged Izhar Ahmad and Umar but

now I came to know that Mst.Shadab who is
sister of accused Izhar Ahmad was also involved
in the said stealing. As a matter of fact the
mother (name unknown) and sister of accused
Izhar namely Shadab used to come to our house.
 8

Because my daughter Zainab hd friendship with

Mst. Shadab. They both used to study in the same
school. Mst. Shadab sister and mother (name
unknown) of accused Izhar gave all information
regarding our house to the accused Izhar and
Umar. Mst. Shadab and her mother were actively
involved in the commission of said offence. I am
fully satisfied, therefore, I charged Mst. Shadab
and her mother whose name is not known to me
for the commission of theft/stealing from my
house of 35/40 tola and two lacs rupees.”

During the investigation in the case, the investigating

officer recovered cash amount of Rs.50,000/- the stolen

amount, from the armpit pocket of accused Izhar Ahmad

and at his pointation also recovered some of the golden

ornaments from the jewelry shops. During the

investigation, Muhammad Imran son of Fazal Subhan

produced an affidavit to the Investigating Officer,

wherein he stated that he is running the business of cloth

and own a shop in the name of “Maskan Botheke”

situated at Gaju Khan Road; that Izhar Ahmad alias

Raheel alias Ali was his class fellow and he used to visit

his shop; that one day Izhar Ahmad came to his shop and
 9

brought with him golden ornaments weighing 12 tola and

told him that he is selling the said golden ornaments upon

the owners of Diamond Jewelers, Sundar Jewelers

namely Noor Hassan, and Ajmal Khan, but they

demanded the local identifier; that on his request he went

with him to the said jewelry shops; that upon his

identification, the golden ornaments were purchased by

the jewelers from Izhar Ahmad and he received the cash

amount; that after some time the local police of Police

Station Jabbar arrested him and also recovered the golden

ornaments from the shops of the said jewelers; that Izhar

Ahmad has also taken his motorcycle bearing registration

No.DGN-3831 from him and on demand of sale

consideration, Izhar Ahmad stated that the motorcycle

has been stolen from him.

8. Before adverting to the merits of the present case,

we will see the history/background how the office of

Justice of Peace was established. In ancient times the

duty of conserving the peace lay primarily upon the

 10

holders of certain offices, some of which were held by

royal appointment and some by election. Examples of the

former were the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Steward, the

Lord Marshall, and the justices of the King's Bench, who

had jurisdiction throughout the kingdom. Justices of the

Common Pleas and barons of the Exchequer were

conservators within the limits of their courts and justices

of assize and goal delivery within the limits of their

commissions. Sheriffs and coroners were examples of

elected officers who were peace conservators within their

counties and constables within their townships or

hundreds.

There were also persons elected by the general

body of freeholders of each county to act as peace

conservators for the county. Furthermore, there were

conservators of the peace by prescription and by tenure

of land.

The process by which the ancient keepers of the

peace with executive functions transformed into justices

 11

with judicial powers can be traced in the history of the

fourteenth century. In 1327 the King, who is "by his

office and dignity royal the principal conservator of the

peace within his dominions", assumed the right of

appointing all conservators.

In 1344 it was enacted that "two or three of the

best of reputation in the counties shall be assigned

keepers of the peace by the King's commission; and at

what time need shall be, the same, with other wise and

learned in the law, shall be assigned by the King's

commission to hear and determine felonies and trespasses

done against the peace in the same counties, and to inflict

punishment reasonably according to [law and reason,

and] the manner of the deed".

After the transformation of keepers of the peace

into justices with judicial powers, other statutes followed

by which the number and authority of justices were

regulated. By the Jurisdiction in Liberties Act, 1535 it

was again enacted that no person or persons, of what

 12

estate, degree or condition so-ever they be, should have

any power or authority to make justices of the peace, but

that all such officers should be made by letters patent

under the King's Great Seal in the name and by the

authority of the King and his heirs. The Act contained a

saving for the County Palatine of Lancaster, where the

right of appointment is vested in the Sovereign in right of

the Duchy. This right, which has thus been vested in the

Crown, may not, without legislation to that end, be

delegated to any other authority.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the law

concerning justices of the peace was derived from a

number of statutes, some of them centuries old. The

effect of legislation in the middle years of this century

was to simplify and consolidate this branch of the law

and subsequently to reform it notably by extending the

powers of magistrates sitting in Magistrates' Courts.

The appointment and instruction of justices, and

the keeping of the supplemental list, are regulated by the

 13

Administration of Justice Act, 1973, as are the

appointment, retirement and superannuation of

stipendiary magistrates.

The Justices of the Peace Acts, 1949 and 1968

govern the residence qualification of justices,

disqualification, the size and chairmanship of benches

and the administration of magistrates' courts. The

Administration of Justice Act, 1964 deals with the

indemnification of justices out of local funds.

Justices of the peace for any commission area,

other than stipendiary magistrates and ex officio justices,

are appointed on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty

under the hand of the Lord Chancellor or, in greater

Manchester, Merseyside or Lancaster, the Chancellor of

the Duchy of Lancaster.

The commission of the peace is the authority under

which justices exercise their jurisdiction. It is the

commission which gives justices the ancient common

law powers of conservators of the peace in addition to the

 14

statutory powers more recently conferred. (Halsbury’s

Laws of England, Volume 29, published in 1979 by

Butterworths, London UK).

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago,

USA, published in 1966 the "Justice of the Peace, in

England, 'a magistrate appointed by special commission

under the great seal to keep the peace within the

jurisdiction for which he is appointed. Justices for

counties are appointed by the crown on the advice of the

lord chancellor, with the recommendation of the lord

lieutenant of the county. Justices for boroughs having

municipal corporations and separate commissions of the

peace are appointed by the crown, the Lord Chancellor

adopting the recommendation of the Town Council, the

local Advisory Committee, or acting independently.

Apart from a small body of professional

(stipendiary) Magistrates, mainly in London and large

towns, J.Ps. are unpaid and have no professional legal

qualification. For guidance on law and on the rules of

 15

evidence, they rely on their salaried clerk. The latter must

be either a barrister of not less than 14 years' standing, or

a solicitor of the Supreme Court, or have served for not

less than seven years as clerk to a metropolitan or

stipendiary magistrate, or have been attached to a

metropolitan magistrate's court.

The jurisdiction of the petty Sessional Courts, in

which the J.Ps. sit, is wide and multifarious, embracing

both criminal and civil work, and a number of matters,

such as licensing, which are administrative rather than

strictly judicial and derive from the period when the

justices were often the only properly constituted local

authority. The criminal jurisdiction is of two types:

(1) Committing persons accused of the more serious

offences to trial at higher courts where there is a prima

facie case for the prosecution;

(2) Hearing and determining summarily the less serious

charges. Magistrates may not impose a sentence of more

than six months' imprisonment. Selected Magistrates sit

 16

in juvenile Courts to deal with matters, by no means

exclusively criminal charges, involving young persons

under the age of 17, and these Courts have special rules

of the civil jurisdiction, other than that affecting children

and young persons, that in matrimonial cases is the most

important.

In the United States, justices of the peace usually

are elected, although sometimes they are appointed by

executive authority. They constitute the lowest of the

State Courts, and their maximum award in civil cases is

generally limited to about $300 in criminal matters they

may try only misdemeanors Ordinarily they may not

impose a jail sentence in criminal case if the person tried

prefers to pay the fine imposed. Other duties and powers

commonly include the performance of marriage services,

the issuance of warrants for arrest, and the holding of

inquests.
 17

JUSTICE OF PEACE IN INDO-PAK.

During its rule over the Indo-Pak sub-continent the

British colonists had also introduced the concept of

Justices of the Peace in the local system of governance

and conservation of the peace. However, with almost

simultaneous introduction of an elaborate system of

hierarchy of Magistrates the role of Justices of the Peace

never assumed any significant importance in the Indo-

Pak sub-continent and Justices of the Peace were never

conferred any judicial power. Although since their

original induction in the system some additional powers

have been bestowed upon Justices of the Peace from time

to time yet their role essentially remains restricted so far

to conservation of the peace and in case of breach of the

peace their role ends by apprehending the culprit, if

possible, and by reporting the breach of the peace to the

police. It can, thus, be observed without any fear of

contradiction that at least in the context of Pakistan the

role of a Justice of the Peace at the present juncture in

 18

our history is primarily of rendering assistance to the

police in the matters of keeping the peace and, in case of

breach of the peace, apprehending the culprit and

rendering assistance to the police in investigation of the

crime. On November 21, 2002 ex-officio Justices of the

Peace in Pakistan were conferred an additional role

through promulgation of the Criminal Procedure (Third

Amendment) Ordinance (Federal Ordinance No.

CXXXI) of 2002 and this role was in respect of

entertaining complaints and issuance of appropriate

directions to the police authorities concerned regarding

registration of criminal cases, transfer of investigation of

criminal cases and in respect of neglect, failure or excess

committed by a police authority in relation to its

functions and duties. These and other roles of a Justice of

the Peace and an ex-officio Justice of the Peace in our

country are evident from the following provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (commonly

abbreviated as Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon the

 19

judgment rendered by the Lahore High Court in (2005

PLD 470 LAHORE)

How 22-A(6) was inserted in Criminal Procedure,

though in original Cr.PC, the forum of Justice of Peace

was very much there but in November, 2002, the Justice

of Peace was given additional role through promulgation

of the Criminal Procedure (Third Amendment)

Ordinance (Federal Ordinance No.CXXXI) of 2002 and

this role was in respect of entertaining complaints and

issuance of appropriate directions to the police authorities

concerning registration of criminal cases and in respect

of neglect, failure or excess committed by the police

authorities in relation to its functions and duties.

The rationale beyond the conferring of powers

upon the Justice of Peace under the latest amendment,

which was made in the year 2002, was to enable the

aggrieved person to approach the Court of Justice of

Peace for the redressal of his grievances i.e non-

registration of FIR’s, excess of Police, transfer of

 20

investigation to the Courts situated at district level or

Session or at particular Sessions Division. The main

purpose of this enactment was to create a forum at the

door step of the people for their convenience and instead

of invoking or approaching the High Court in its extra

ordinary jurisdiction under Article-199 of the

Constitution, the public would have access to the Courts

situated in their respective Districts for the redressal of

their grievances provided under section-22-A(6) Cr.PC.

It was the intention of the legislature that if there is a

genuine grievance on the part of an individual against the

police and most particularly with reference to non-

registration of FIR, he will resort to the concerned Justice

of Peace i.e Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge

in a District for the redressal of his grievance and the

concerned Justice of Peace would pass an appropriate

order by keeping in view the facts and circumstances of

the case. At times, this is being observed that the office

of Justice of Peace is being misused by the litigants in

 21

order to settle their scores or sometimes to convert the

civil litigation into criminal litigation and to use the

powers under this section to the detriment of the rival

party for certain ulterior motives, which was never the

intention of the legislature. For convenience, the

provisions of section-22-A (6) and 154 of the Cr.PC are

reproduced hereunder;

“Section-22-A(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 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.”
(emphasis provided)

“Section-154 Cr.PC. Information in

Cognizable cases.

Every information relating to the

commission of a cognizable offence if given
orally to an officer incharge of a police
station, shall be reduced into writing by him
or under his direction, and be read over to
the informant, and every such information,
 22

whether given in writing or reduced to

writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance thereof
shall be entered in a book to be kept by such
officer in such form as the Provincial
Government may prescribe in this behalf.”

By comparing the abovementioned provisions of

the Criminal Procedure, it is abundantly clear that

section-154 Cr.PC, the word shall has been used while in

section-22-A (6) Cr.PC the word may has been used,

which manifest the intention of the legislature that the

Justice of Peace is still left with discretion to pass an

order for the registration of FIR that’s too in

appropriate/certain cases. The Larger Bench of Hon’ble

Apex Court in case of Younas Abbass and

others..vs..Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and

others (PLD 2016 SC 581), wherein it was held that;

“Functions performed by Ex-officio Justice

of Peace under S.22-A (6) Cr.PC..Such
functions being quasi-judicial in nature
could not be termed as executive,
administrative or ministerial..Said functions
were complementary to those of the police
 23

and thus did not amount to interference in

the investigative domain of the
police…Khizar Hayat and
others..vs…Inspector General of Police
(Punjad), Lahore and others PLD 2005
Lahore. 470 and Muhammad
Ali..vs..Additional I.G, PLD 2015 SC 753
dissented from.
Functions performed by the Ex-officio
Justice of Peace were not executive,
administrative or ministerial inasmuch as he
did not carry out, manage or deal with things
mechanically. Such functions as described in
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of section-22-A(6)
Cr.PC, were quasi-judicial as Ex-officio
Justice of Peace entertained applications,
examined the record, heard the parties,
passed orders and issued directions with due
application of mind. Every lis before him
demanded discretion and judgment.
Functions so performed could not be termed
as executive, administrative or ministerial on
any account.”

Proceedings before Justice of Peace are quasi-judicial

and are not executive, administrative or ministerial to

deal with the matters mechanically rather the same are

quasi-judicial powers in every case before him demands

 24

discretion and judicial observations and that is too after

hearing the parties.

From the aforesaid paragraph and in view of the

latest judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, it is abundantly clear that a party to a 22-A Cr.PC

proceedings shall have the right of hearing to the

proceedings and the person against whom registration of

FIR is sought he has to be afforded an opportunity of

hearing and thereafter the Justice of Peace can pass any

appropriate order because by not giving notice, the

Justice of Peace would be condemning that person

unheard by passing an order under the quasi-judicial

proceedings. It is therefore, observed that the Justice of

Peace before passing any order for the registration of the

FIR shall put the other party on notice against whom

registration of FIR is asked for.

This is also taken note of that the parties without

approaching the hierarchy provided under the police

department for the redressal of their grievances against

 25

the SHO for non-registration of FIR, the parties directly

approach the Court of Justice of Peace, which is also not

in consonance with law on the subject, first the relevant

hierarchy i.e DPO, RPO, CCPO etc are to be approached

for the redressal of the grievances against the concerned

Station House Officer, when their application for

registration of FIR is not considered by the concerned

police hierarchy, then they have to approach the Justice

of Peace and the Justice of Peace as discussed above,

may pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties as

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred

above.

9. Now dilating upon the merits of the instant

petition, the order for registration of FIR against the

petitioner was passed by the Justice of Peace without

affording an opportunity of hearing, as mentioned in

ground-II of the writ petition. More so, the

complainant/respondent No.1 was arrested by the Police

in case FIR No.676 dated 13.11.2017 for offences under

 26

sections-380/457/411/414/201/202 PPC registered at

Police Station Jabbar, District Mardan, and recoveries

were allegedly effected from his possession and at his

pointation, and after his release on bail in the

aforementioned case, he approached the Justice of Peace

directly, and there is nothing on record that he has

approached the hierarchy of police for registration of the

FIR. The grounds taken in the application under section-

22-A Cr.PC appears to be whimsical. It appears that the

respondent/complainant was arrested on the information

or the Intelligence report of the petitioner in the theft

case, wherein incriminating recoveries were effected

from him. The application under section-22-A Cr. PC

was filed by respondent/complainant in order to harass

and humiliate the public servant, which was never the

intention of the legislature. The element of malafide is

quite apparent from the conduct of the

respondent/complainant and in this view of the matter,

 27

the order passed by the learned Justice of Peace dated

18.4.2018 is not in accordance with law.

For the reasons discussed above, the instant writ

petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 18.4.2018

passed by the Justice of Peace is set aside. However, the

complainant/respondent No.1 is at liberty to file a private

complaint, if so advsed, before the competent forum.

Announced.
Dated. 16.01.2019.

JUDGE

JUDGE

(D.B)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ikramullah Khan, Judge,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim. Judge.
(K.Ali PS)