Summary: Background: A murder case led to the registration of an FIR against an individual who was subsequently arrested. To resolve the matter, a village Panchayat mediated a compromise. The Panchayat decided that the accused's family would offer his daughter in marriage to the victim's family and, failing that, a penalty of Rs. 1,000,000 would be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner issued a cheque as a security for the penalty, but it bounced. The victim’s family sought legal action under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (dishonest issuance of a cheque). The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed the police to register an FIR under Section 489-F. The petitioner challenged this directive under Article 199 of the Constitution. -----Issues: 1- Can a Panchayat legally enforce a compromise requiring marriage or financial penalties? -----2- Is a cheque issued as part of such an agreement valid and enforceable under the law? -----3- Did the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace act lawfully in ordering the registration of an FIR? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Custom of Vani/Swara is illegal and un-Islamic: The compromise enforced by the Panchayat was deemed void ab initio as it violated constitutional and Islamic principles. The practice of giving women in marriage as a form of dispute resolution (vani/swara) is un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and criminalized under Section 310-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. --Invalidity of the cheque: The cheque issued under the unlawful compromise was void under Section 24 of the Contract Act, 1872, as its consideration was illegal and against public policy. As a result, the cheque could not form the basis of a civil or criminal case. --Registration of FIR under Section 489-F was not justified: Since the cheque and its underlying agreement were void, initiating criminal proceedings under Section 489-F was legally untenable. --Improper conduct by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace: The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to consider the facts and the illegality of the compromise before directing the registration of an FIR. The petition was accepted, and the directive of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to register an FIR was set aside. -----Citations/Precedents: International Instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Articles 1 & 2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW), 1993. Constitution of Pakistan (1973): Article 8(1): Declares customs and laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void. Article 25: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Article 14: Protects the dignity of individuals. Article 34: Promotes full participation of women in all spheres of life. Article 36: Protects women, children, and families. Judicial Precedents: Atif Zareef v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 550): The right to dignity is inviolable and non-negotiable. Mst. Sakeena Bibi (PLD 2022 FSC 57): Declared vani/swara practices un-Islamic. National Commission on Status of Women v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 218): Jirgas/Panchayats cannot make arbitrary decisions violating fundamental rights. Muhammad Siddique v. The State (PLD 2002 Lah. 444): Customs inconsistent with law and civil society values are invalid. Hasnain Akhtar v. Justice of Peace (2015 YLR 2294): Panchayats cannot resolve criminal cases or bypass the legal process. Cooper et al. v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1, 1958): Local customs must yield to constitutional principles. Legislation: Section 310-A, Pakistan Penal Code: Criminalizes vani/swara with penalties of imprisonment and fine. Section 24, Contract Act, 1872: Invalidates agreements based on unlawful consideration.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A, 154, 155 & 200---Non-cognizable offence---Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Jurisdiction--- Petitioner was aggrieved of direction issued by Ex-officio Justice of Peace forregistration of FIR against him in case where no cognizable offence was made out---Validity---Ex-officio Justice of Peace was empowered under S.22-A(1-6), Cr.P.C. to issue necessarydirections for registration of FIR, if after perusal of available record contents of applicationprima facie could establish commission of cognizable offence---In case of non-cognizableoffence, two remedies were available first before Station House Officer concerned, to whomapplication was sent by Ex-officio Justice of Peace, to register complaint in DailyRoznamcha Report and was to proceed according to provisions of S.155, Cr.P.C. for seekingpermission from Judicial Magistrate for investigation and thereafter to submit complaintbefore Court---Remedy of private complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C. before Court was alsoavailable to complainant---High Court set aside order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peaceand FIR registered against petitioner was quashed---Constitutional petition was dismissed incircumstances.

Summary: Remedy against disobedience to the orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace----The brief facts of the case involve a land transaction where the petitioner, along with another person, allegedly sold agricultural land to respondent No.4 under false pretenses. It is claimed that the land had already been sold eight years ago, and the petitioner and his co-accused are accused of fraud and cheating. The ex-Officio Justice of the Peace initially advised the petitioner to approach the concerned SHO for redress, but when there was non-compliance by the SHO, a subsequent order was issued on 12.01.2015. In this order, the ex-Officio Justice of the Peace directed the CCPO, Lahore, to ensure the implementation of the earlier order and also to proceed against the SHO under the Police Order, 2002 for non-compliance. The document further discussed the nature of the powers vested in the ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, the quasi-judicial functions performed by them, and the obligations of police officers to comply with their orders. It also delves into the legal aspects, including the applicable articles and sections of the law, such as Article 155 of the Police Order, 2002. Finally, the judgment concludes that the ex-Officio Justice of the Peace was justified in passing the order on 12.01.2015, and the petition is dismissed for being devoid of merit.

Summary: Constitutional Petition.Held: (i) There are no two opinions that the powers conferred on the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are not judicial, rather these are ministerial and while dealing with applications under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C, he can issue directions to the concerned police officials for observance of all legal and requisite formalities but he cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agency, which isindependent in all respect.(ii) A Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan performs functions which art administrative and ministerial in nature and not judicial in character. Even the superior Courts of Pakistan having constitutional, legal, supervisory and inherent judicial jurisdiction have consistently and consciously refrained from directly interfering with investigation of a criminal case by the police and, therefore, it is but obvious that Justices of the Peace or ex-officio Justices of the Peace possessing only administrative and ministerial powers should be twice shy of such direct interference.(The writ petition was dismissed in the circumstances)

Summary: Background:Jamal Khan, the petitioner, contested a land dispute with rival claimants based on an arbitration agreement purportedly executed on 2.2.2000. He alleged that the agreement was fake as he never signed it and accused the respondents of forgery and fraud. However, both the local police and a Justice of Peace declined to register a criminal case, citing the dispute as of a civil nature.---Issues:Whether the refusal to register a criminal case against the respondents was justified.Whether the dispute between the parties is civil or criminal in nature.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner argued that the police should have registered a First Information Report (FIR) based on the accusations of forgery and fraud. However, the police, as well as a Justice of Peace, declined to do so, considering the dispute to be civil in nature due to conflicting claims over the land.The Court noted that the dispute centered around a thumb impression on an arbitration agreement, contested by the petitioner. However, the police report did not support the petitioner's claim, and both parties were engaged in a civil dispute over the land.Given these circumstances, the Court found no jurisdictional error or flaw in the decisions of the Justice of Peace and the High Court. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Scope---Change ofinvestigation---Scope---Petitioner assailed the dismissal of her application under S. 22-A(6)(ii), Cr.P.C., for transfer of investigation---Said application was made whenInvestigation had already been completed, the challan whereof had been submitted before theTrial Court and the case was pending adjudication at final stage---Provisions of Ss. 22-A &22-B, Cr.P.C. were not meant to interfere in the judicial functions of the courts, if afterinvestigation the challan was submitted and cognizance was taken by the court of competentjurisdiction---Petitioner had not raised any new point in her application for re-investigationof the case i.e. discovery of new facts---Constitutional petition, being devoid of merits, wasdismissed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Scope---Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. provide a remedy to the citizens at their door steps against the highhandedness ofthe police, if they failed to perform their duties regarding registration of the criminal case,proper investigation or excess is committed by them about their functions and duties.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 173---Report of police officer---Re-investigation---Scope---No bar exists for reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of a final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.;however, re-investigation cannot be allowed when a criminal case has finally been disposedof by the Trial Court.Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934; Raja Khurshid Ahmad v.Muhammad Bilal and others 2014 SCMR 474 and Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 8others 2006 SCMR 373 rel.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Discretionary and equitable relief---Scope---Jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution is not only discretionary but also equitable---Such exercise of discretionary and equitable relief is governed by the maxim; "he who seeksequity must come to the Court with clean hands".

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Elementof mala fide---Scope---Petitioners assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peacewhereby criminal case was ordered to be registered against them---Order for registration ofFIR against the petitioners was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing---Respondent was arrested in FIR on the complaint of one of the petitioners---Petitioner hadalleged that a passenger van and official vehicle of the petitioners collided and there was nodamage to any vehicle, the passenger van also went away and vehicle of the petitioners alsoproceeded, meanwhile the respondent forcibly stopped the official vehicle, resisted anddamaged the shirt of the levies official but on the other hand respondent claimed that thepetitioners and other levies officials took him to a place where he was tortured andwrongfully confined for ten hours---No medical certificate about injuries to the respondentwas available on record---Prompt FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested on thesame day, therefore, no question of wrongful confinement arose---Respondent had filed theapplication under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. in order to harass and humiliate the public servants---Element of mala fide was apparent from the conduct of respondent---Constitutional petitionwas allowed and the impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.2020 YLR 44 and Sughra Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Scope---Ex officio Justice of Peace, in exercise of powers under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., is not supposed toproceed and act mechanically by simply considering the version of events narrated by a partyapplying for registration of an FIR, but instead, in order to safeguard against misuse or abuseof such process, the Ex-officio Justice of Peace has to apply his judicial mind and has tosatisfy himself that prima facie some material is available on record to support such version.Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581rel.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizablecases---Scope---Word 'shall' has been used in S.154, Cr.P.C., while the word 'may' has beenused in S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., which manifests the intention of legislature that Ex-officioJustice of Peace is still left with discretion to pass an order for registration of FIR.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of second FIR---Scope---Petitioner, accused of kidnapping and murder, claimed himself to be innocent in theFIR lodged against him and came forward to lodge a second FIR for the same incident forwhich the proposed accused had already lodged an FIR and challan thereof had also beensubmitted---No second case could be registered for giving a counter-version thereof by anaccused---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A & 154---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizable cases---Registration of second FIR---Scope---No direction can be issued for lodging the secondFIR when an FIR has already been registered in respect of the incident.Miss Jameela for Petitioner.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A, 22-B & 155---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427 & 504---Powers of Ex-officioJustice of Peace---Scope---Information in non-cognizable cases---Intentional insult withintent to provoke breach of peace---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officioJustice of Peace whereby SHO was directed to place complaint of petitioner before theMagistrate---Allegations levelled in the complaint, prima facie, attracted Ss. 504 & 427,P.P.C., which as per Column 3, Chapter XXII of Sched. II to the Criminal Procedure Code,1898 were, non-cognizable offences---Station House Officer of Police Station was requiredunder S.155(1), Cr.P.C., to enter the substance of such information in the relevant book keptat the police station and refer the informant to the Magistrate---Constitutional petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.155---Information in non-cognizable cases---Scope---Section 155, Cr.P.C., providedthat for recording information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence a book isprescribed known as "Roznamcha or Station Diary", in which information relating tocommission of non-cognizable offence is entered---Generally police would not initiate anyaction and the complainant or informant, after having a copy of the said report is sent away,and if, the Station House Officer (SHO) deems it fit to initiate investigation then undersubsection (2) of S.155, Cr.P.C., police has to take permission of the Magistrate---Section155(2), Cr.P.C., requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation of a non-cognizable offenceis mandatory in nature, if any arrest is to be made then it can only be made after obtainingwarrant of arrest from the Magistrate as required under S.155(3), Cr.P.C

Summary: Judicial Magistrate was not empowered under the law to issue direction to the police regarding registration of case, which powers are only vested with the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace u/s 22-A Cr.P.C., so without discussing the merits of the complaint & leaving aside the question that whether the offenses allegedly committed are cognizable or nor, we reached at the conclusion that the act of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing direction to the police regarding registration of case is beyond his jurisdiction, so the whole proceeding upon which the superstructure was build i.e. registration of case are not sustainable.