ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- A case under section 365, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Barana, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang at the instance of father of respondent No,4 against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No,203 of 2008, dated 14-7-2008, the allegation being for the abduction of respondent No,4. During the course of investigation the alleged abductee was recovered by the local police from Dera Ismail Khan where respondent No,4 had appeared before the police in Police Station Perva District Dera Ismail Khan, whereafter the police of District Jhang having been contacted, the respondent No,4, was brought to the relevant Police Station for the purpose of investigation. It seems that the statement of respondent No,4 under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had been recorded and afterwards police wanted his statement to be recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. For this purpose the police produced him before the concerned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate on 10-9- 2008 where respondent No,4 stated that the police had kept him in the police station for the last four days and the Investigating Officer of the case wanted his statement under threat according to his (Investigating Officer) wishes and that he was not inclined to make any statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
2. On the next day i.e. On 11-9-2008, respondent No,4 got himself medically examined from the DHQ, Hospital, Jhang. A copy of the medical report indicating two blunt weapon injuries on his person is available on the record of this file.
3. On the basis of this MLR and the allegation of mal-treatment at the hands of the police officials i.e. Respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7, respondent No,4 Atif Shahzad filed an application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. Before the Justice of Peace/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, District, Jhang seeking a direction for registration of case against respondents Nos.5 to 9 and the writ petitioner.
Allegation of physical maltreatment was against the police officials but it was stated that they had acted so at the instance and abetment of the writ petitioner and the private respondents Nos.8 and 9. This petition was disposed of with the following observations of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dated 22-1-2009: --- "The petitioner supported his statement through his affidavit. Prima facie, cognizable offence is made out. The concerned D.S.P. Is directed for registration of case against respondents Nos.2 to 7.
Copy of the order be provided to the petitioner. Copy of petition along with order be sent to concerned D.S.P. For information and compliance."
4. The legality of the aforesaid direction dated 22-1-2009 has been questioned through the instant writ petition on the ground that the MLC obtained by respondent No,4 was a false document and respondent No,4 had adverted to the registration of the case only to pressurize the police as the result of investigation was not suiting to the mala fide of respondent No,4 and his father who was complainant of the case under section 365, P.P.C. The learned counsel argued that even if any excess had been committed by the Investigating Officer and the other police officials in the discharge of their duty the petitioner ought to have his remedy under Article 35 of the Police Order, 2002 or by seeking the indulgence of the competent police officer under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 for transfer of investigation but the excess allegedly committed during the course of investigation of a case could not be made the subject of registration of a separate criminal case.
5. It may be stated at the very out set that the scope of the powers and functions of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have since been well-settled. When an application is submitted to the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. For a direction against the non-registration of a case by the police, he is not supposed to enter into any deeper controversy nor to embark upon any inquiry for the determination of the veracity of the information placed before him. The only jurisdiction which could be exercised by him in this behalf is to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence. Reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case titled Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. And others PLD 2007 SC 539. Examined on this touchstone the impugned order dated 23-1-2009 does not suffer from any illegality. The contents of the application contained the allegation of physical maltreatment and torture at the hands of the police officials on the abetment of the writ petitioner and respondents Nos.8 and 9.
6. The argument that the alleged offence having been committed during the course of investigation of a case already registered with the police, the excess of the police officials, if any, was to be remedied under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 or Article 35 of the Police Order, 2002 is without any substance. The alleged offence constituted an independent criminal cause and, therefore, the remedy by way of registration of case could be availed of. Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 deals with the matters in reference to the change of investigation, whereas, the grievance of respondent No,4 was not for the change of investigation but it was against the alleged police torture and conspiracy/abetment thereof by the writ petitioner and respondents Nos.8 and 9. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be set at naught on the strength of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002.
7. Article 35 of the Police Order, 2002 no doubt provides a remedy against the neglect of duty and excesses by the police officials but it no where provides that the excesses committed by the police officials during the investigation shall be liable for an action under Article 35 only. It provides a jurisdiction to the District Nazim which may be exercised by him on his own motion or on the receipt of a complaint from an aggrieved person but this would be optional for the aggrieved person to seek his remedy under Article 35 (ibid) or to invoke the jurisdiction of any other competent authority or Court. Article 35 of the Police Order, 2002 cannot be given an overriding effect where the aggrieved person does not approach the District Nazim. Thus, the provisions of Article 35, if not invoked, are not an impediment to exercise of jurisdiction by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no force, which is dismissed with costs.