Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 22-A, 173, 190 & 195 --- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 182 --- False Information --- Registration of FIR --- Justice of Peace --- Maintainability --- Instant Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed against order dated 29.5.2025, passed by Single Judge, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024, whereby Cr. Misc. Application, filed against order dated 13.5.2024, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) has been dismissed --- Briefly, facts were that on 18.11.2005 one Mansoor Ali lodged FIR bearing No.410/2005 at Boat Basin Police Station, Karachi, for offences under Sections 506-B, 504, and 34 PPC against petitioner and his father (now deceased) in which they were tried and convicted by Trial Court which was set-aside in appeal and they were acquitted of charge by learned Appellate Court --- Per petitioner, FIR was false and vexatious and during trial proposed accused Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha (respondents Nos.5 & 6) have recorded false statements against him and his father and based on their evidence they were convicted but learned Appellate Court has acquitted them in appeal --- Petitioner in first instance approached local police for taking action against proposed accused (respondents Nos.5 & 6) under Section 182, PPC and having failed to receive response has invoked jurisdiction under Section 22-A, CrPC --- Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after hearing parties' respective counsel and going through report of police declined to issue direction to SHO to lodge FIR of petitioner against respondents Nos.5 & 6 and dismissed application under Section 22-A, CrPC whereafter, petitioner filed Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024 before Sindh High Court, Karachi, which too, vide impugned order, was dismissed --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that both Courts below were not justified to decline relief sought by petitioner against accused persons who falsely implicated petitioner in aforesaid FIR, however, after trial, petitioner and his father (now deceased) were acquitted from charge --- According to learned counsel, petitioner and his father were made to face criminal proceedings, which were based on mala fide and resulted in malicious prosecution, which caused damage and injury to their reputation --- Learned counsel further argued that it was duty of concerned Station House Officer ("SHO") to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against respondents Nos.5 & 6 for having recorded their false statements with intention to cause injury to petitioner and his father, so that accused persons would have been convicted under Section 182, PPC for recording false statements --- Respondents argued that in view of proceedings before judicial forums, wherein, no such directions were issued to I.O or SHO for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182, PPC, therefore, petitioner cannot compel I.O or SHO to initiate such proceedings --- Court held that grievance expressed by petitioner before this Court is against refusal of concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against two accused persons namely Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha who according to petitioner gave false evidence before Trial Court resulting in conviction of petitioner and his father (now deceased) in FIR bearing No. 410/2005 at Boat Basin, PS Karachi for offences under Sections 506-B, 504 and 34, PPC vide judgment dated 03.03.2008 by court of VIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi (South) --- Court held that order of Trial Court was assailed by accused persons namely Abid Hussain and Ali Adnan Sheikha (petitioner in instant case) in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2008 in court of VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) who vide judgment dated 23.05.2009 set aside judgment of Trial Court and acquitted petitioners with further directions to cancel bail bonds and discharge sureties --- Court held that it is pertinent to mention that petitioner appears to have not assailed aforesaid judgment passed by Appellant Court as nothing has been placed on record to this effect --- Court held that however, petitioners after lapse of 15 years from date of aforesaid judgment approached police authorities to initiate proceedings against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who according to petitioner recorded false evidence before Trial Court --- Court held that on refusal by police to exceed to request of petitioner, petitioner approached Ex Officio Justice of Peace i.e. VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) by filing application under Section 22-A, CrPC for issuance of direction to concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against aforesaid respondents, however, such application was dismissed after hearing parties in detail vide judgment dated 13.05.2024 --- Court held that petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 655/2024 under Section 561, CrPC before High Court of Sindh, Karachi who after hearing parties and having examined entire facts and relevant law in detail has been pleased to dismiss same --- Court held that though learned Single Judge in aforesaid paras has correctly interpreted relevant provisions of law which do not require any interference by this Court however, in order to further elaborate scope of relevant provisions of law attracted in instant case i.e. Sections 173, 190 and 195, CrPC and Section 182, PPC we may examine same in detail --- Court held that Section 173, CrPC mandates that every investigation pursuant to FIR shall be completed within 14 days however, if investigation is not completed within period of 14 days, officer In Charge of police station shall within 3 days of expiration of such period forward to Magistrate through public prosecutor, an interim report in form prescribed by provincial government --- Court held that I.O after completing investigation as per Rule 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934 can recommend disposal of FIR in Class "A" if case is true but accused is untraceable, or in Class "B" if information given to police is maliciously false, or in Class "C", if matter is non-cognizable or for civil suit or case was filed owing to mistake of fact --- Court held that once such report is submitted before concerned Magistrate of First Class or any other Magistrate specially empowered by provincial government on recommendation of High Court, such Magistrate has power to either accept same or take cognizance of offence reported or to direct I.O to reinvestigate matter and submit fresh report within prescribed period --- Court held that however, Magistrate has no authority to direct I.O for disposal of FIR under A, B or C class as referred to herein above --- Court held that in case I.O after completion of investigation forms opinion that information laid before police by complainant is false, he can recommend disposal of FIR in "B" Class (maliciously false) after recording reasons and submit same before concerned Magistrate, who after perusal of same can accept such recommendation and dispose of FIR in "B" class or issue directions for disposal of case in any other class and can take cognizance of matter and proceed further in accordance with law --- Court held that however, said Magistrate has no authority to issue directions to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against complainant in view of bar laid under Section 195, CrPC which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 187 of Pakistan Penal Code, except on complaint in writing of public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate --- Court held that it may be clarified that in case of registration of FIR information is laid before SHO of concerned police station, then only said SHO is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC in case of false information in appropriate cases, whereas, if such SHO is not available or prevented by sufficient cause to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC then such proceedings can be initiated by superior police officer --- Court held that having examined aforesaid provisions of law we may now explain scope of Section 182, PPC which provides that if complaint is laid before any public servant giving any information which he/she knows or believes to be false with intention to cause or likely to cause, such public servant, to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if true state of facts were known by him, or to use lawful power of such public servant to injury or annoyance of such person then such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to six months or with fine too which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both --- Court held that it may be observed here that incase information laid before public servant with Bonafide belief and knowledge of it being true, same cannot be termed as false unless it is proved in accordance with law through judicial proceedings --- Court held that such information can be termed as 'not proved' and not 'false' and, therefore, same cannot attract penal provision of Section 182, PPC --- Court held that suffice is to state that provision of Section 182, PPC can only be initiated by public servant before whom false information was laid, which resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings and found to be false through judicial process, whereas, such penal provisions cannot be invoked in cases where complainant could not prove allegations by producing sufficient evidence or material in support of such allegation before judicial forum --- Court held that to sum up above discussion in view of hereinabove provisions of law it has emerged that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 182, PPC for having given false information to public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power, except on written complaint of concerned public servant or his higher authority --- Court held that in case in hand it has transpired that neither I.O formed opinion that information given by complainant is false nor submitted report under Section 173, CrPC before concerned Magistrate for disposal of case in "B" Class, instead report was submitted for disposal of case in "C" Class however, Magistrate took cognizance of matter and convicted accused persons nominated therein through judicial process --- Court held that such judgment of Trial Court was assailed before appellate forum who acquitted accused persons in view of contradiction in judgment of Trial Court --- Court held that however, there was no finding of Appellate Court to effect that information laid before police by complainant was false --- Court held that since there was no opinion of I.O and finding by any judicial forum holding information laid before police by complainant as false, therefore, provisions of Section 182, PPC are otherwise not attracted in instant case --- Court held that any other interpretation to hereinabove provisions of law would result in multiplying criminal litigation out of same criminal proceedings and would open floodgate of filing frivolous proceedings in every criminal case where complainant could not succeed due to any other reason i.e. jurisdictional defect, limitation, insufficient evidence, or benefit of doubt etc --- Court held that in view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of case, we do not find any substance in instant Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal whereas, learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court, Karachi has ably dealt with all factual and legal issues as per spirit of law, therefore, impugned judgment does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity --- Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Registration of FIR on complaint—Duty under S. 154 Cr.P.C.; supervisory role of Justice of Peace ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 154, 22-A, 173, Complainant’s application disclosed cognizable offences; police failed to act under S.154. Justice of Peace rightly directed registration of FIR and further proceedings per law. Where more than one FIR/version surfaces, investigation must proceed and, upon report under S.173, the trial Court determines which version to try and whether any redundant FIR requires quashment; premature interference is unwarranted. (b) Inherent jurisdiction—Quashing/halting investigation—Exceptional grounds only ----Cr.P.C.—S. 561-A, Invocation of S.561-A to set aside a direction for FIR registration or to stifle investigation is impermissible save in exceptional circumstances. Investigation is the prerogative of the police and should not be judicially interdicted in routine. (c) Public servants—Police officials—No blanket immunity for acts done under colour of office, Official status does not confer immunity from criminal liability. Allegations against police officials performing “official duties” do not bar registration of a case; all persons are equally amenable to law, and accountability cannot be avoided by uniform or office. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal refused; High Court judgment dated 09-07-2024 affirmed; order of Justice of Peace directing registration of FIR to stand; investigation to proceed in accordance with law. Cited Provisions: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 154, 22-A, 173, 561-A.

Summary: Background: The Petitioner filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Ahmadpur East, seeking an order to compel the SHO of Police Station City Ahmadpur East to register an FIR against the Respondents. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents, including some police officials, unlawfully entered the house of her son and detained several family members. They were later released, but the Respondents allegedly returned, abducted the family members again, and subsequently killed them during a staged police encounter. The Petitioner’s attempts to file an FIR were ignored by the police, prompting the application. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred in dismissing the application due to the delay in filing it. 2- Whether the provisions of the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022 apply to the alleged incident. 3- Whether the registration of FIR No. 205/2023 precludes the filing of a new complaint under the Act of 2022. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the delay in filing the application should not have been the sole reason for dismissal. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace should have considered the severity of the allegations, which warranted a thorough investigation by an independent agency. The court held that the Act of 2022 applies to cases where public officials are accused of torture or custodial death. In this case, the allegations involved actions by public officials while the victims were effectively under their control, fitting within the definition of "custody" under the Act. The court determined that the registration of FIR No. 205/2023 does not prevent the filing of a new complaint under the Act of 2022. The Act is lex specialis and provides a new remedy that operates independently of the general criminal procedure. ----Citations/Precedents: Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 SCMR 512) Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) Muhammad Bilal Nawaz v. Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, and others (2024 LHC 3288) Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2019 SC 112) The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039) Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police Punjab (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) The petition was accepted, and the Petitioner was directed to file a complaint with the FIA under the Act of 2022, which would proceed according to the law. The impugned order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside.

Summary: The backdrop of the case involves a habeas corpus petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by Fahad Saleem for the recovery of his brother, Mohsin Saleem, allegedly held in illegal custody. The original petition lacked specific details, notably the name of the police station involved, leading to procedural complications.The petitioner contended that all legal protocols, including the detainee's transfer and obligatory presentation before a magistrate within 24 hours, were adhered to, arguing that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace's order overlooked these legal compliances.The Lahore High Court, upon examination of the case, underscored several constitutional and legal frameworks pertinent to personal liberty and arrest procedures in Pakistan. The court invoked Article 10(2) of the Constitution and Section 61 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the paramount importance of personal liberty and the legal safeguards against arbitrary detention, including the mandate that an arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within a specified 24-hour period, excluding the time required for travel.The court meticulously analyzed the sequence of events, including the issuance of police records (Rapts) and the conduct of the bailiff appointed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. It was noted that there were inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the bailiff's reporting and in the actions taken by the petitioner, Muhammad Waqas, regarding the custody and subsequent presentation of the detainee before the court.Conclusively, the High Court determined that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the contested order without proper regard for the constitutional and statutory provisions that regulate police custody and judicial remand procedures. As a result, the court annulled the impugned order, declaring it null and void ab initio, and without any lawful basis. This ruling, delivered by Justice Aalia Neelum on 17.01.2024, reiterates the judiciary's imperative to uphold legal and constitutional mandates concerning arrest and detention processes, ensuring adherence to due process and safeguarding individual liberties against unlawful state actions.

Summary: Tariq Mehmood filed a petition challenging an order issued by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace. The order directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Tariq Mehmood based on an application filed by Respondent No. 3. According to the respondent, Tariq Mehmood issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 400,000, which bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to an accusation of a cognizable offense under section 489-F PPC. Tariq Mehmood contested the order, arguing that the cheque was a "self-cheque," exempting it from criminal liability.During the hearing on December 15, 2023, Mr. Muhammad Waqas Mirza, representing the petitioner, argued that the cheque in question was a self-cheque and did not meet the essential elements of the offense under section 489-F PPC. He further contended that the petitioner never obtained a loan from Respondent No. 3. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General, Ms. Khalida Parveen, and Rana Waqar Ahmad Khan, representing Respondent No. 3, opposed the petition, asserting that the self-cheque does not exempt the petitioner from criminal liability.The judgment delves into the interpretation of section 489-F PPC, emphasizing the need for dishonest intent in issuing a dishonored cheque. It discusses the legal aspects of self-cheques, referring to the Negotiable Instruments Act and relevant case law from India. The court concludes that section 489-F PPC does not apply to a self-cheque made payable to "self" without dishonest intent. The judgment dismisses the petition, upholding the Ex-officio Justice of Peace's order for the registration of an FIR, and directs the police to investigate the matter in accordance with the law.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, through a writ petition, challenged the decision of the ex-officio Justice of Peace (JOP) in dismissing her application for registering a criminal case. She alleged that her son was abducted at gunpoint from the jurisdiction of Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan, and later, his dead body was found in District Sahiwal. The JOP dismissed her application on the grounds that no evidence supported the claim that the abduction occurred in District Pakpattan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the JOP had jurisdiction to assess the veracity of the allegations. 2- In cases where abduction occurs in one district and the body is found in another, which district has jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction of the JOP: The Court held that the JOP exceeded his jurisdiction by assessing the veracity of the petitioner's claims. According to established legal precedent, the JOP is only empowered to assess whether the information provided constitutes a cognizable offense and should direct the police to register an FIR without determining the truthfulness of the allegations. The findings of the JOP in this regard were deemed unwarranted and were set aside. Territorial Jurisdiction for Registration and Investigation: The Court ruled that a case can be registered in either district—the district where the abduction occurred or where the body was found. The Police Rules, 1934, support this conclusion, stating that an FIR can be registered and investigated by the police station in the area where the act occurred or where the consequence of the act (in this case, the discovery of the body) ensued. Therefore, the police in District Pakpattan were under a duty to register the case, but failed to do so. The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the JOP was set aside. The Court directed the SHO of Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan, to record the petitioner’s statement under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and register a criminal case. The investigation is to be conducted fairly, and a report is to be submitted under Section 173 after completing the investigation in a timely manner. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2007 SC 539 PLD 2018 SC 595 Hakim Mumtaz Ahmad & another vs. The State (PLD 2002 SC 590)

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought the registration of a criminal case against the proposed accused (Respondents No. 3 to 6), alleging that they prepared a bogus power of attorney and agreement to sell by forging the petitioner’s signatures and thumb impressions to usurp his property. The petitioner’s application for registering the FIR was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal on the ground that the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature. The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and sought directions for the registration of the FIR. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace erred in declining the registration of an FIR, citing the civil nature of the dispute? ---2- Whether the petitioner has alternate remedies available under the law, and if so, should the writ petition be entertained? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Civil Nature of the Dispute: The court found that the dispute between the parties primarily involved civil proceedings. The alleged forged agreement to sell had already been used in a civil suit, which was decreed in favor of one of the respondents. The petitioner had challenged this decree through an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), and that application was still pending. Given that the issue of the forgery would be addressed in the pending civil proceedings, the court held that it was inappropriate to interfere through criminal proceedings at this stage. --Availability of Alternate Remedies: The court pointed out that the petitioner had alternative legal remedies available, including filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) or approaching the magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. The court also observed that criminal proceedings should not be pursued when the ultimate liability depends on the outcome of a civil dispute, as reiterated in Akhlaq Hussain Kayani v. Zafar Iqbal Kayani (2010 SCMR 1835). --Multiplicity of Litigation: The court highlighted that entertaining criminal proceedings on matters already under civil litigation could lead to unnecessary complications and multiple legal actions, which should be avoided. --No Legal Infirmity in the Decision of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace: The court concluded that the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to decline the registration of the FIR was correct and in line with the law, as the case did not justify criminal proceedings while civil litigation was ongoing. The petition was dismissed in limine, and the court found no legal infirmity, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The petitioner was, however, granted the liberty to pursue alternate remedies available under the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Jamal Khan v. Secretary Home Department (2021 SCMR 468) Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (PLD 1992 Lahore 178) Akhlaq Hussain Kayani v. Zafar Iqbal Kayani and others (2010 SCMR 1835) Ch. Feroze Din v. Dr. K.M Munir (1970 SCMR 10) Ghulam Ali alias Sadoro v. S.H.O., Police Station Veehar (2003 YLR 2168)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. The respondent (a private company) had applied to the Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), requesting registration of an FIR for dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace granted the request, leading to the present petition challenging the decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. was competent without first approaching senior police officials. -----2- Whether the dishonored cheques issued by the petitioner fell under the scope of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). -----3- Whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred by deciding the application without hearing the petitioner and without awaiting the police report. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace should have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to be heard due to the specific circumstances of the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The court held that there is no requirement in Section 22-A Cr.P.C. for a complainant to first approach higher police authorities before filing an application before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. The petitioner’s reliance on the Younas Abbas case was misplaced, as the minority opinion of the judge did not create a binding legal requirement. The dishonored cheques, including those drawn on the corporate account, required careful examination, particularly given the petitioner’s argument that they were security cheques rather than for immediate payment. This complexity justified granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that although the Ex-officio Justice of Peace has discretionary powers, those powers must be exercised judiciously, especially when documents such as bank memos show "stop payment" or "closed account" remarks, which complicate the assessment of dishonest intent under Section 489-F PPC. The petition was accepted, and the case was remanded to the Ex-officio Justice of Peace for fresh decision-making, after providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. -----Citations/Precedents: Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, and others (PLD 2016 SC 581) Abid Ali alias Imran and another v. City Police Officer, Faisalabad, and 6 others (PLD 2021 Lahore 274) Dawood Abdul Ghafoor v. Justice of Peace and others (2021 PCr.LJ 1527) Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539) Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore, and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. The petitioner, a Christian by faith, had previously moved an application under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C., claiming that his wife (Respondent No. 3) had married another man (Respondent No. 4) without obtaining a divorce from him, thus committing a cognizable offense. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace had dismissed this application, stating it was not maintainable since the petitioner had previously filed a similar application in another jurisdiction, which had also been dismissed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the principle of res judicata applies to applications filed under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. -----2- Whether the second application for registration of FIR on the same facts is maintainable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, including applications filed under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace, exercising quasi-judicial functions, had already ruled on the matter when the petitioner’s first application was dismissed. Therefore, the second application on the same facts was barred by res judicata. The court clarified that although the petitioner was precluded from filing another application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. on the same facts, he could still pursue the remedy of filing a private complaint, which is a separate statutory right. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed. ------Citations/Precedents: Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581) Commissioner v. Sunnen, 33 U.S. 591 (1948)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 157 – Police Rules, 1934, Rules 24.1 & 24.5 Registration of an FIR is not an absolute requirement upon receipt of a complaint—Police is first required to enter the substance of the complaint in the police station daily diary under Rule 24.1 of the Police Rules—Only upon forming a reasonable suspicion, based on preliminary inquiries, may the police register an FIR in the FIR Register under Rule 24.5—Distinction between Ss. 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. must be maintained—A police officer may refuse to register an FIR if no reasonable suspicion is found, and such refusal is not illegal—Reliance placed on Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal (PLD 2016 SC 581), Abdul Rehman Malik v. Synthia D. Ritchie, American National (PLD 2020 SC 201). (b) Justice of Peace – Powers Under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B Ex-officio Justice of Peace (JOP) is not bound to mechanically direct registration of an FIR upon a complaint—JOP is vested with quasi-judicial powers and must apply judicial discretion while determining whether a cognizable offence is made out—JOP may consider the veracity of allegations before issuing directions for FIR registration—Precedents requiring automatic FIR registration under S. 154, Cr.P.C. overruled—Reliance placed on Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal (PLD 2016 SC 581), Abdul Rehman Malik v. Synthia D. Ritchie, American National (PLD 2020 SC 201). (c) Abuse of Criminal Law – Business Dispute Framed as Criminal Offence: ---- False invocation of criminal proceedings—Petitioner attempted to frame a contractual dispute as a criminal offence to exert pressure on the opposing party—Police inquiry found the allegations false, revealing a business dispute—Complainant had an alternative remedy under S. 200, Cr.P.C., by filing a private complaint—Mere existence of a dispute does not warrant FIR registration—Reliance placed on Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantonment (PLD 2007 SC 539). (d) Constitutional Petition – Maintainability Under Article 199: ---- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 can only be invoked where a violation of law is established—No violation was shown in the refusal to register an FIR, as the complaint was found to be baseless—Petition dismissed—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G., Faisalabad (PLD 2015 SC 753). ----Disposition: Petition dismissed—No illegality found in the decision of the JOP refusing to direct FIR registration—Petitioner advised to pursue alternative remedy under S. 200, Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal (PLD 2016 SC 581) Abdul Rehman Malik v. Synthia D. Ritchie, American National (PLD 2020 SC 201) Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantonment (PLD 2007 SC 539) Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G., Faisalabad (PLD 2015 SC 753)