' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.--- Ameer Ali, petitioner, got registered a case F.I.R. No,225, dated 17-3-2008 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, Jhang with an allegation that Syed Hassan Ali and others committed Qatl-i-Amd of his son Ameer Hamza by firing at him and also committed murderous assault on his companions Zaheer and Munir. The motive for the occurrence was election rivalry.
2. On 8-4-2008 the petitioner/complainant made an application before Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore with a request of change of investigation alleging that the local police had joined hand with the accused party. The application for change of investigation in original was forwarded to District Police Officer, Jhang and its copy to Regional Police Officer, Faisalabad for necessary action in accordance with law. The petitioner has complained that the Inspector- General Police, Punjab, Regional Police Officer, Faisalabad and District Police Officer, Jhang did not dispose of his request for change of investigation. On 3-5-2008 the petitioner/complainant made a written request for change of investigation of the case before Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Jhang with the same allegation already laid before the Police Authorities. Ex-officio Justice of Peace disposed of the application by means of few worded order, dated 9-5-2008, which is reproduced below in verbatim for ready reference:-- "In view of the law laid down in PLD 2005 Lah. 470 Justice of Peace cannot interfere in the investigation. The petitioner may apply to the concerned authorities as required by Police Order, 2002. With this observation this petition is hereby disposed of."
3. Feeling dissatisfied with inaction on the part of police authorities and the above said order of Ex- officio Justice of Peace, Ameer Ali, petitioner/complainant, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 mainly on the ground that the Police Authorities and the Ex-officio Justice of Peace failed to discharge duties cast upon them by law.
4. I have gone through the precedent case, the very basis of impugned order, and would say without any fear of contradiction that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application of petitioner/ complainant under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Summarily without taking into consideration the admitted fact that the main grievance of petitioner/complainant, which forced him to approach Ex-officio Justice of Peace was that his written request for change of investigation before the Police Authorities had not been disposed of either way. The law laid down in the precedent case does not stand in the way of petitioner/ complainant to make a complaint before Ex-officio Justice of Peace in terms of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. It was laid down in the precedent case that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace may interfere in the matter of transfer of investigation where the authorities mentioned in Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 had already been approached by the complaining person, but such authorities failed to attend his grievatice and the application of the complaining person was lying unattended to. In the case in hand the complainant made a written request for change of investigation before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was forwarded to District Police Officer, Jhang for redressal of grievance of the petitioner/complainant. Here I would say that the request for change of investigation by the petitioner/complainant should have been placed before the Authorities in terms of section 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 for its disposal on its merits and in accordance with law. There was no justification to forward the request for change of investigation to the local police in utter disregard of the statutory provisions of Police Order, 2002 governing the subject of change of investigation.
Inaction on the part of Police Authorities escaped notice of the Ex-official Justice of Peace. In the given circumstances, there was no question of interfering with the matter of transfer of investigation because it was permissible for the EX-official Justice of Peace to activate the process of change of investigation in terms of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 particularly when his written complaint in this regard before the concerned quarter had not been disposed of on its merit. I find it advantageous to reproduce below the key line of precedent case, referred to above on the subject which reads:--- " An ex-officio Justice of the Peace cannot step into the shoes of a competent police authority so as to himself pass an order transferring investigation of a criminal case and his role in this regard is confined only to getting the process under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 activated if the complaint before him establishes that the complaining person's recourse under section 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 has remained unattended to so far. If the complaining person has not yet even applied before the competent authorities under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 seeking change of investigation then his complaint under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Is not to be entertained by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace as no occasion has so far arisen for interference in the matter by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace. If the competent authorities under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 have already attended to the request of the complaining person regarding transfer of investigation and have not found the case to be a fit case for transfer of investigation then too ex- officio Justice of the Peace cannot interfere in the matter as the competent authorities have already consciously attended to the matter and there is nothing left for the ex-officio Justice of the Peace to get activated or initiated. An ex-officio Justice of the Peace is not to assume the role of an appellate, revisional or supervisory authority in that respect. An ex-officio Justice of the Peace, like any judicial or other authority outside the police hierarchy, should be extremely slow in directly interfering with the matter of transfer of investigation and in an appropriate case he may interfere only where the authorities mentioned in Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 have already been approached by the complaining person but such authorities have failed to attend to his grievance and the application of the complaining person is lying unattended to Even in such a case an ex- officio Justice of the Peace may refuse to interfere in the matter unless it is established to his satisfaction that some specific and particular material pieces of evidence had been missed out by the Investigating Officer and the same remain to be collected by the police. An ex-officio Justice of the Peace may not interfere in such a matter unless he feels satisfied that the required evidence had either not been collected or that further evidence is required to be collected in a given case and the recourse of the complaining person to the authorities mentioned in. Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 in that regard has so far remained unattended to In such a case an ex-officio Justice of the Peace may issue a direction to the concerned police authority to get the process under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 activated so that an appropriate and suitable decision on the complaining person's grievance can be, made by the competent authorities under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 one way or the other....
' While exercising his jurisdiction under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. An ex-officio Justice of the Peace is only to activate the available legal remedy or procedure so that the grievance of the complaining person can be attended to and redressed, if found genuine, by the competent authority of the police. In this view of the matter if an ex-officio Justice of the Peace can issue the desired direction under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Activating the available legal remedy or procedure which the High Court would also have done if seized of a writ petition filed in that regard under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 then the remedy before an ex-officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Can ordinarily be termed and accepted as an adequate alternate statutory remedy ousting a direct recourse by an aggrieved person to the High Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, declared that in the matters of complaints against the working of the police covered by the provisions of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. An aggrieved person, except where the High Court feels satisfied that it is an exceptional case arising out of extraordinary circumstances warranting direct interference by the High Court and rendering the remedy under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Inadequate, cannot file a writ petition before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution before availing of the normally adequate alternate statutory remedy before an ex-officio Justice of the Peace under section 22- A(6), Cr.P.C."
5. The rule laid down in the precedent case reproduced above is a complete answer to the controversy laid before this Court. At the cost of repetition I would say that the request for change of investigation made by the petitioner/complainant before the police authorities in terms of Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002 has not been disposed of on its merits and in accordance with law. In this view of the matter the impugned order by the ex-officio Justice of Peace is not sustainable. I, therefore, accept this petition and set aside the impugned order with an observation that the complaint under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. By the complainant will be deemed pending before ex-officio Justice of Peace, Jhang for its disposal in accordance with law, particularly the case-law reproduced above.