' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore, A dated 11th of August 2007, whereby on a petition filed by respondent No,2 in terms of sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. theInvestigating Officer of case F.I.R. No,418 dated 25th of May, 2007 was directed to insert sections 365-B, 324, 34 & 109, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and corum non judice; that it is the prerogative of the police after recording of the F.I.R. Statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. And on the basis of other material available on the record to add or delete any offence; that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not conferred with any authority in terms of section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. To order addition of any offences as it is only the trial ,Court which can frame charge in respect of any offence disclosed by the record even though the same is not mentioned in the report submitted in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C. And that respondent No,2 can avail remedy available to her before the learned Magistrate or the trial Court if any mistake has been committed by the police incorporating offences in the F.I.R.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 contends that the direction issued by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has no jurisdiction under the law to pass an order with regard to addition of offences in the F.I.R.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-- ' "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."
7. From the above, it is evident that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace cannot make any observation with regard to the nature of offence or direct adition or deletion of a penal provision as the same exclusively falls within the domain of the Investigating Officer before the challan is submitted and thereafter the trial Court which is fully competent to add any offence if made out from the F.I.R., report tendered in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C. And other material available on the record at the time of framing of the charge. B Further, the parties also have the right to address arguments at the time of framing of charge in support of their contentions. Reliance is placed on cases of Muhammad Javed Khan v. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and 2 others 2007 PCr.LJ 124 and Ghulam Haider v. Additional Sessions Judge and others 2006 YLR 2772.
8. In view of the above legal position, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 11th of August, 2007 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.