The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), provides for the office of Justice of Peace to maintain public peace and order, and to issue necessary directions to the police and civil administration to ensure effective enforcement of the law.
Section 25 Cr.P.C. defines Ex-Officio Justice of Peace as follows:
“25. Ex-officio Justice of the Peace by virtue of their respective offices, the Sessions Judges and on nomination by them, the Additional Sessions Judges, are Justices of the Peace within and for the whole of the District of the Province in which they are serving.”
In Pakistan, the initial role of the Justice of Peace under the Cr.P.C. was primarily to assist the police in maintaining the public order and peace and, in the event of infraction of law, to help apprehend the culprit and to investigate the crime. However, his role was subsequently extended and broadened through various amendments in the Cr.P.C. and added subsection (6) in section 22-A Cr.P.C., in the year 2002, and conferred additional powers on the Ex-Officio Justices of Peace. The said provision reads as under:
(6) An Ex-Officio Justice of 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.
Historically, when an aggrieved person attempted to report the occurrence of a cognizable offence but the police refused to formally record the complaint, those with sufficient resources had no option but to approach the High Court through a Writ Petition, seeking directions for registration. However, by the time such petitions were admitted, heard, and finally decided, crucial evidence was frequently lost or compromised, rendering the relief practically ineffective. The outcome, in most cases, was nearly equivalent to a denial of justice, with only rare exceptions. The introduction of subsection (6) has significantly changed this landscape, allowing an aggrieved person to obtain timely recourse directly and effectively.
Powers under section 22-A (6) of the Cr.P.C. raise important legal questions:
- Do the provisions of law regarding the recording of FIR permit or even envisage an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information which is received by an Officer in charge of a Police Station for the purpose of being reduced into writing as an FIR?
- Does the law empower an Officer In charge of a Police Station to refuse to record an FIR only because, in his opinion, the allegations conveyed to him were false? And,
- What is the proper scope of the powers conferred through the newly added provisions of section 22-A (6) of the Cr.P.C., and whether the said provisions conferred any new, extra, or additional powers on an Ex-Officio Justice of the peace in the matter of recording the FIR.
In theory, the law appears unequivocal: every cognizable offence necessitates the immediate registration of an FIR under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Justice of the Peace under section 22-A is empowered to ensure that this statutory right is not denied. However, for numerous complainants across Pakistan, these legal safeguards remain confined to paper. Political interference, administrative reluctance, and deep-rooted institutional deficiencies transform the straightforward act of registration of an FIR into a complex and often insurmountable ordeal. It may be reiterated that there was no provision in any law, including Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., that authorizes a Police officer to inquire into the information received and to decide whether it is true or false, but he is duty-bound to lodge an FIR and record the information without any delay. The legislature’s wisdom is clear here in ensuring that investigating powers remain with the police and the Justice of Peace facilitates the procedural enforcement of legal rights without intruding on executive functions. No Police Officer is empowered to determine the guilt of an accused at the stage of FIR registration. A similar question arose before the Hon’ble Larger Bench of the August Apex Court in a case titled as Younas Abbas and others V. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581), that:
- Whether Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. is ultra vires of the Constitution inasmuch as it confers Executive powers to a Judicial officer?
While some legal scholars argued in favour of its being ultra vires, the Supreme Court rejected this view and upheld the Validity of Section 22-A.
Section 154 states that “Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police-station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, 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 1 [Provincial Government] may prescribe in this behalf”.
However, in practice, the reality stands in stark contrast to the theory. The police often refrain from registering an FIR, and the Justice of Peace seldom issues directions in the true spirit of the law. Initially, the police hesitate and rely on baseless excuses to avoid lodging a formal FIR. Subsequently, the Justice of Peace frequently delves into the merits of the case, a task that properly belongs to the police during investigation, but only after the FIR has been duly registered.
The legal framework upholds the mandatory nature of registration of FIR and provides a crucial safeguard against denial of justice. Despite challenges, the higher Judiciary’s upholding of the procedure is a breath of fresh air, reinforcing the rule of law in Pakistan.
Bibliography: –
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- PLD 2007 SC 539
- PLD 2016 SC 581
- 2025 PCr.LJ 447
Ma Sha Allah sir excellent article..