SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.-- Mst. Sahib Jani filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of order dated 16-10-2010 passed by learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace, D.I. Khan whereby the application dated 1-7-2010 filed by petitioner for initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for violating the order dated 3-3-2010 passed by the then ex-officio Justice of the Peace, D.I. Khan was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. The petitioner filed an application under -section 22-A(6), Cr.P.0 for registration of case against the respondent No.4. Learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace on the application of petitioner, directed the local police to register the case against the above mentioned respondent. In pursuance thereof, F.I.R. No.398 was registered on 24-8-2009 under sections 506/452, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt:. The grievances of the petitioner are that the police has not arrested the respondent No.4 accused, therefore, she has made another application under the same section praying therein that the respondent No.4-accused be arrested immediately and be punished for offences mentioned above. The police is avoiding the arrest of said respondent. While .Deciding the said application, the learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace has passed the order on 3-3-2010 which is reproduced as below:-- "Perusal of the file would show' that consequent upon the dismissal of bail before arrest application of the accused Shamshad Alam Khan as withdrawn vide order dated 3-10-2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan, the accused was not arrested in the present case.
In the circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed and it is directed that unless and until the accused Shamshad Alam Khan obtained any order of the competent Court to'the contrary, the investigation officer of the present case who procured the arrest of the accused and produced him before the concerned Court for further necessary action in accordance with law.
Copy of this order be annexed with the record for compliance".
4. The above referred order of ex-officio Justice of the Peace is still operative. No appeal has been filed by the respondent-accused against the said order. However, the petitioner has again filed another application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Against the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to the ex- officio Justice of the Peace for initiating the contempt proceedings against them, because they have not arrested the respondent No. 4 accused. Thus, they have violated the order of the Court and committed the Contempt of Court, as such they may be proceeded against and may be punished in accordance with law. This petition was dismissed by the learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace vide impugned order on the grounds reproduced as under:-- "Furthermore, nothing has been brought on the record that the accused is available to the police they are not arresting him in such like circumstances, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Moreover, the contempt proceedings are between the Court and the contemner and this Court do not deem it necessary to start contempt proceedings, as such the instant petition stands dismissed".
5. The above background of the instant case examined in the light of the provision contained in section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. It is not difficult to comprehend that the true intent and purpose of the said provision is that the powers bestowed upon the ex-officio Justice of the Peace are that he would direct the police to act in accordance with law. The scope and extent of exercise of powers has fully been enumerated under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C while exercising the powers, the ex-officio Justice of the Peace passed a comprehensive and meaningful order directing the investigation officer of the case to procure the arrest of the accused and to produce him before the competent Court for further proceedings under the law. The learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace can pass the direction only to this extent and nothing more because section 22-A(6), Cr.P.0 clearly provides those powers which can be exercised by ex officio. Justice of the Peace. The provision of 22-A(6), B Cr.P.C is reproduced below for ready reference:- "An ex-officio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to the police authority 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 to excess committed by the police authority in relation to its functions and duties."
6. As far as exercising the powers is concerned, obviously the learned ex-officio Justice of the Peace already exercised the powers in terms of above mentioned provisions of law through issuing direction to the investigation officer to procure the arrest of respondent No.4 and to produce him before the competent Court for further proceedings. Besides, the above referred powers, there is no other provision of law, which can be pressed into service for invoking the jurisdiction of the nature as provided under the section ibid.
7. The petitioner's anxiety about the arrest of respondent No.4 fully conceived by the learned ex- officio Justice of the Peace, thus, he has passed the above stated order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any other provision, where the ex-officio Justice of the Peace has been empowered to initiate the proceedings of contempt of Court against the respondents.
8. Initiating the proceedings against the respondent amounted that ex-officio Justice of the Peace has travelled beyond the parameter of his jurisdiction as referred to above, because by now he himself set in motion the process of law to punish the person, who has failed to act upon the direction passed by him. The law provides, only to this extent that the ex officio Justice of the Peace can direct the concerned police authorities to perform their duties and functions as per provision laid down in section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. An ex officio Justice of the Peace cannot arrogate to himself the power of redressing the actual grievance itself. An exception to this can- be visualized in cases of a clear legal obligation on the part of a police officer to act in a particular manner and achieving the purpose of law a direction may be issued by ex officio Justice of the Peace to the concerned police officer to do the needful. Under the law mentioned above, ex-officio Justice of the Peace is supposed to perform the role of a facilitator and that of, a bridge or a contact between the complaining person and the police authority concerned and the jurisdiction under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Does not allow the ex-officio Justice of the Peace to put his responsibility on the shoulder of other higher police authority and to start exercising although executive powers himself which the law has vested in the concerned police authorities. In view of the afore stated discussion, the ex- officio Justice of the Peace exercises his power as an administrative officer and not in his capacity as Judicial Officer like Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, as such, the ex-officio Justice of the Peace has no powers to initiate the contempt proceedings against any person, so as to exercise his jurisdiction of Judicial Officer. It would rather militate against the constitutional mandate of separation of powers.
9. The application seeking for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondent for implementation of certain order earlier passed by ex-officio Justice of the Peace is not maintainable. The Justice of the Peace has already exercised his powers while passing order on application of the petitioner for the similar purpose on 3-3-2010. Those orders have not been challenged by respondent No.4, which are still operative and the petitioner can seek her remedy if available under the law and if so advised.
10. This petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed.