Case law 22A Detail discussion on the role of justice of peace .
سید قمبر علی شاہ بمقابلہ صوبہ سندھ کے معاملے میں، ایک انوکھا اور اہم نکتہ طے کیا گیا تھا جس میں جسٹس آف پیس کے کردار کو ضابطہ فوجداری (Cr.P.C.) کی دفعہ 22-A کے تحت بیان کیا گیا تھا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ جسٹس آف پیس ایف آئی آر کے اندراج سے قبل کسی کیس کی مکمل تحقیقات یا میرٹ پر فیصلہ کرنے کا اختیار نہیں رکھتا۔ اس کے بجائے، ان کا کام سختی سے اس بات کو یقینی بنانے تک محدود ہے کہ شکایت میں فراہم کی گئی معلومات سے قابلِ ادراک جرم کا ابتدائی طور پر معاملہ قابل فہم ہے۔
اس فیصلے نے سی آر پی سی کی دفعہ 154 کے تحت پولیس افسران کی قانونی ذمہ داری کو اجاگر کیا۔ قابل شناخت جرائم کے بارے میں معلومات موصول ہونے پر فوری طور پر ایف آئی آر درج کرنے کے لیے، شکایت کو غیر ضروری جانچ پڑتال یا اس کی سچائی کا جائزہ لیے بغیر۔ اس تشریح کا مقصد ایف آئی آر کے اندراج سے پولیس حکام کے من مانی انکار کو روکنا ہے، اس طرح قائم کردہ قانونی فریم ورک کے ذریعے انصاف تک رسائی کے لیے شکایت کنندگان کے حقوق کا تحفظ کرنا ہے۔
جسٹس آف پیس کے کردار کو تفتیش کے بجائے ایک نگرانی کے طور پر بیان کرتے ہوئے، عدالت نے فوجداری انصاف کی انتظامیہ میں طریقہ کار کی شفافیت اور قانونی دفعات کی پابندی کی اہمیت کو تقویت دی۔ اس منفرد تشریح نے قانون نافذ کرنے والے طریقوں میں احتساب اور شفافیت کو یقینی بنانے کے لیے عدلیہ کے عزم کو اجاگر کیا، اس طرح پورے دائرہ اختیار میں اسی طرح کے معاملات میں شہریوں کے حقوق کے تحفظ کے لیے ایک مثال قائم کی گئی۔
In the case of Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh, a unique and pivotal point decided was the delineation of the Justice of Peace's role under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court clarified that the Justice of Peace is not empowered to conduct a thorough investigation or adjudicate on the merits of a case before the registration of an FIR. Instead, their function is strictly limited to ensuring that a prima facie case of a cognizable offense is discernible from the information provided in the complaint.
This decision highlighted the statutory obligation of police officers under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to register FIRs promptly upon receiving information about cognizable offenses, without subjecting the complaint to unnecessary scrutiny or evaluation of its veracity. This interpretation aimed to prevent arbitrary refusals by police officials to register FIRs, thereby safeguarding the rights of complainants to access justice through the established legal framework.
By defining the Justice of Peace's role as one of oversight rather than investigation, the court reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in the administration of criminal justice. This unique interpretation underscored the judiciary's commitment to ensuring accountability and transparency in law enforcement practices, thereby setting a precedent for the protection of citizens' rights in similar cases across the jurisdiction.
Judgement
2024 SCMR 1123
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. 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. The offences have been categorized by the Cr.P.C. into two classes i.e., cognizable and non-cognizable. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. lays down a procedure for conveying information to an S.H.O. with respect to the commission of a cognizable offence, while the provisions of Section 155 (1) of the Cr.P.C. articulates the procedure vis-à-vis a non-cognizable offence.
At whatever time, an Officer Incharge of a Police Station receives some information about the commission of an offence, he is expected first to find out whether the offence disclosed fell into the category of cognizable offences or non-cognizable offences. There is no provision in any law, including Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C., which authorizes an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any enquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information before complying with the command of the said provisions. He is obligated to reduce the same into writing, notwithstanding the fact whether such information is true or otherwise. The condition precedent for recording an FIR is that it should convey the information of an offence and that too a cognizable one. The remedy of filing a direct complaint cannot measure or match up to the mechanism provided under section 154, Cr.P.C., in which the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty bound to record the statement and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. If in each and every case it is presumed or assumed that instead of insisting or emphasizing the lodgment of an FIR, the party may file a direct complaint, then the purpose of recording an FIR, as envisaged under section 154, Cr.P.C., will become redundant and futile and it would be very easy for the police to refuse the registration of an FIR with the advice to file direct complaint. However, in some exceptional circumstances, the alternate remedy in the shape of direct complaint may be availed but not in every case. The statutory duty casts upon the officer of a police station to enter information regarding the cognizable offence first and then the investigation comes later in order to gather evidence and other relevant material to prosecute the identified culprits. No doubt, an Investigating Officer plays a crucial role in the administration of the criminal justice system and the constituent of investigation report and its worth keeps hold of plenteous value and repercussions on the outcome of any criminal case, but tainted investigations can become an acute obstacle in the administration of justice.
Crl.P.L.A.99-K/2018
Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh and others
Comments
Post a Comment