' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge!Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dated 30-10-2007 and 31-10-2007, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed Mst. Rasoolan Bibi and Mst. Zohara Bibi, who had filed two separate petitions under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.0 for registration of case to approach the concerned S.H.O.Who would record their statements and whould proceed to register a formal F.I.R. If a cognizable offence is made out.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were contrary to the provisions of Article 155(2) of the Police Order, 2002 which provides that the prosecution against the police officials can only be initiated after obtaining an inquiry report from some higher echelon of the police which aspect was not considered by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the documents placed on the record.
4. I am afraid the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable under the law as in the instant case the provisions of section 155(2) of the Police Order, 2002 are not attracted inasmuch as the petitions filed under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. Disclose commission of cognizable offences punishable under the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code whereas Article 155(2) is restricted in its application to cases calling for prosecution in terms of Article 155(q) of the Police Order.
2002. The word "prosecution" used in Article 155(2) implies institution and continuation of criminal proceedings after a formal charge has been framed and mere registration of F.I.R. Cannot be construed as "prosecution" in the context of Article 155(2) of the Police Order 2002. Reference is made to the case of Sakhawat Hussain Shah v. The State and 3 others (2006 PCr.LJ 1564). Further, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station 'ouse Officer, Okara Cann. And others (PLD 2007 SC 539) has observed as under:- ' "For the purposes of this petition, we are concerned, primarily, with clause (i) of the above quoted provisions of subsection (6) of the section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. These provisions create a new forum to rectify a wrong done by an Officer Incharge of a Police Station by refusing to register a criminal case i.e, not recording an F.I.R. We have held above that the provisions of section 154 Cr.P.C.
Command a S.H.O. To lodge an F.I.R. If the information conveyed 'to him disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the information being correct or incorrect: Undoing this wrong on non-registration of a criminal case would mean only an order to the S.H.O. To register the case. The provisions of the said subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Confer no additional powers on an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to hold any enquiry to assess the credibility of such an information communicated for the purpose in question nor do the said provisions give any extra authority to the said Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to refuse registration or order non-registration of an F.I.R. In violation of or beyond the mandatory requirements of section 154, Cr.P.C."
' From the above, it is manifest that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has no option except to order registration of a criminal case if commission of a cognizable B offence is made out from the contents of the petition as in the instant case. It is noteworthy that the petitioner is being proceeded against in contempt by this Court for misbehaving with the Bailiff and using derogatory remarks.
5. For what has been stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders are in consonance with C law and no illegality has been committed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
' There is no merit in, this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.