' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14-2-2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura whereby he directed the S.H.C. Police Station, Factory Area to get hold the disputed document with the permission of Civil Court Ferozewala and send the same to Forensic Science Laboratory F.I.A. Centre Technical Wing, Islamabad to ascertain as to whether the disputed thumb impressions on agreement to sell dated 22-5-2004 was genuine or was secured by the electronic/ mechanical process/scanning.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as gleaned from the petition are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with Maqbool Ahmadrespondent No,4 for purchase of 38-Kanals, 14-Marlas land, but in the meanwhile respondent No,4 in connivance with Abdul Waheed respondent No,3 got the land transferred in his name. Thereafter, on 20-5-2005, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against respondent No,4 but respondent No,3 while joining hands with respondent No,4 lodged a criminal case F.I.R. No,391 offences under section 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Against the ' petitioner and others. On 20-3-2006 respondent No,4 filed an application before the learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Ferozewala seeking comparison of his thumb impressions on the document in question i. e agreement to sell through Finger Print Expert Bureau Punjab Lahore who after examination, opined that, the thumb impressions on the questioned document was of the same person i,e, Maqbool Ahmad respondent No,4 on the basis of which the police after perusing the documentary evidence opined that the F.I.R. Registered against the petitioner was false and recommended for its cancellation/discharge. On 3-2-2007 respondent No,3 filed an application under sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace, Ferozewala seeking another report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, F.I.A. Centre Islamabad who vide impugned order dated 14-2-2007 accepted the application hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the learned Justice of Peace, is against law and is contrary to the facts. The learned Justice of Peace has no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and direct him to get another comparison of the thumb impressions. It is only the trial or Illaqa Magistrate, who is vested with the authority to pass such order on the application of concerned Investigating Officer. Further submits that, already one report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore is on the file of the learned Civil Judge. As the F.I.R. Is liable to be cancelled after the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore the complainant/ respondent No,3 in order to get favourable results, wanted another report, without any legal basis. Further states that respondent No,3 has no locus standi to seek comparison of thumb impressions of respondent No,4 who had already availed the chance before the learned Civil Judge, Ferozewala. The matter is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Court and the declaration qua genuineness or otherwise of the document, in question falls within the domain of learned Civil Court who could have been approached even for second report in this case.
4. Conversely learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 opposed this writ petition by arguing that in view of the specific allegations, made by the petitioner in his application addressed to the S.H.O. That his thumb impressions have been managed to secure through electronic/ mechanical means by scanning the same thus, same be referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory F.I.A.
Centre, Technical Wing, Islamabad. Since the Investigating Officer failed to perform his duty, therefore, respondent No,4 was compelled to file application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.
Before the learned Justice of Peace with a direction to the concerned Investigating Officer to do the needful. Further argued that it is respondent No,4 who is the aggrieved person of the fraud, committed by the petitioner has every right, under the law to get registered a criminal case against the petitioner for committing fraud and preparing a forged and fabricated document. The argument that the thumb impressions have already been compared by the Finger Print Expert Lahore, which has given a finding that, the thumb impressions on the document, are genuine and are not forged and fabricated and the objections on the report has been filed before the Civil Court, which are yet to be decided. This does not stop the Investigating Officer in criminal case to probe into the matter. Also states that since the civil as well as criminal proceedings can go together the request of respondent No,4 for comparison of the thumb impressions from the Forensic Science Laboratory F.I.A., Centre, Technical Wing, Islamabad is not without substance and is in accordance with law. The learned Justice of Peace, while exercising his power under sub- clause (iii) of subsection (6) of Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Has rightly directed the S.H.O. To get held the document with the permission of Court aid got the same examined from the Forensic Science Laboratory F.I.A. Centre Technical Wing Islamabad.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate- General states that, the order passed on the application of respondent 13/complainant of F.I.R. By the learned Justice of Peace is in accordance with law; however, when confronted with whether any powers vested with Justice of Peace to give direction to the Investigating Officer to take certain steps, while conducting the investigation is within the jurisdiction of Justice of Peace or not, he frankly conceded that under the law, the Investigating Officer should have acted on the application of the complainant and should have approached the competent. Court i,e, Illaqa Magistrate or the trial Court seeking permission to obtain specimen signatures of the accused of F.I.R. To compare the same with the signatures or thumb impressions, disputed by the complainant to be forged signatures/ thumb impressions. The powers given under sub-clause (i) to (iii) of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Are there but the Justice of Peace is not authorized to regulate the investigation. It is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to proceed and conduct the investigation, in accordance with law.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the impugned order, as well as other documents placed on the record under subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Powers of Justice of Peace reads as follow:
(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. The Full Bench of this Court in a case reported as Khizer Hayat and others vs. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) while discussing section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C.
Observed as under: "Complaints about failure by the Investigating Officer to record a cross- version of the accused party.-- While dealing with a complaint of this nature an ex-officio Justice of the Peace should call for comments of the Investigating Officer explaining as to why he has not recorded the version of the accused party and if such comments confirm the complaint that despite having been approached in that regard by the accused party the Investigating Officer has not recorded the version of the accused party and there is no valid or justifiable reason for such default on his part then a direction may be issued by the ex-officio Justice of the Peace to the investigating officer to do the needful or in the alternative the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) of the releVant District may be directed by the ex-officio Justice of the Peace to attend to this aspect of the matter and to ensure that the needful is done by the Investigating Officer without further ado."
8.As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court, Justice of Peace can direct the police officer to do the needful in accordance with law and not to suggest the procedure or to give a direction to do a certain act. Here in this case a direction has been given to the Investigating Officer to take into possession the original document and to obtain the thumb impressions of the accused and send the same for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory F.I.A. Centre, Technical Wing, Islamabad. In the civil suit, filed by the petitioner a comparison was already done on the order of learned Civil Judge and the report of Finger Print Expert Bureau is already on the case file. The report sent by the Finger Print Expert Bureau is in positive. Respondent No,3 had raised objections to the same; similarly objections were raised by respondent No,4. The matter is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. Admittedly F.I.R. Was recorded after filing of the suit by the petitioner. The Investigating Officer of the case, may of his own or, if any application is moved to him for comparison of the thumb impressions, under the normal practice, if so requires shall apply to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate or trial Court with the prayer that fresh thumb impressions may be ordered to obtain of the person, who is disputing his thumb impressions on the document for comparison. This was not done by the Investigating Officer, in view of the report, already obtained by the learned Civil Judge in the suit filed by the petitioner. Since, the Civil Court had taken cognizance of the matter and there is a report stating that, the thumb impressions on the document in question are those of respondent No,4 who at the most, was at liberty to challenge the report and move an application to the Civil Court for sending the thumb impressions for further verification to the Forensic Science Laboratory, F.I.A. Centre Technical Wing, Islamabad, No such application was moved to the learned Civil Judge. The complainant of the F.I.R. Stated to have moved an application on which no action was taken by the concerned Investigating Officer. The Justice of Peace, being not a judicial officer, while exercising his administrative powers can at the most direct the S.H.O. Concerned to proceed and conduct the investigation in accordance with law.
9. Under section 156, Cr.P.C. An officer In charge of Investigation has statutory right to investigate the circumstance of an alleged cognizable offence without requiring any permission from the Judicial authority and such statutory right cannot be interfered with by judiciary what to talk about the powers under sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. Investigation includes all proceedings under Criminal Procedure for collection of evidence by Police Officer or by any other person other than a Magistrate as it is not within the domain of the Courts.
10. In this view of the matter, this writ and the impugned order dated 14-2-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Ferozewala is set aside. However, if the Investigating Officer has received any application from respondent No,4 he shall apply to the concerned Illaqa Magistrate/Civil Judge seeking permission to obtain the thumb impressions for comparison with the original.