' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.---Through the instant constitutional petition the impugned order dated 17-5-2011 passed by Mr. Sohail Ikram learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Chakwal has been assailed whereby on an application moved by the respondent No,4 under section 22-A Cr.P.C., the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace directed the police to proceed against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application was moved by the petitioner against the respondent No,4 for proceeding against him under the Blasphemy laws to the DPO.
Instead of registration of case the inquiry/investigation was conducted into the allegations and the allegations were found to be false.
3. The said proceedings conducted by the police were not challenged before any forum and the matter ended. The learned counsel contends that as provided under section 156-B, Cr.P.C., no police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police could conduct any inquiry or investigation into the matter without obtaining the prior permission from the Central or Provincial Government.
The concerned police officer did not initiate any proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. So the respondent No,4 who was a private person could not move for initiating such proceedings. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments the learned .Counsel referred to PLD 2001 Lahore 84 (Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector-General and others) and PLD 2007 Lahore 53.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that since the investigation conducted by the police was not challenged so the respondent No,4 would be the beneficiary of it. He conceded that under provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C., no Court could take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188, P.P.C. Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The learned counsel goes on to submit that it was a matter of public importance and the respondent No,4 was competent to move an application to the learned Justice of Peace for this purpose and the impugned order passed after obtaining the comments submitted by the S. H.O. , suffers from no legal infirmity. In support of his arguments he referred to 1992 SCMR 2162 (Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore and 2 others v. Abdul Ghafoor).
5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused the available record.
6. It is important to note that the proceedings conducted by the police on the application of the petitioner before registration of case were quite illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Ex- officio Justice of Peace could not base his order on the said proceedings so on this score alone the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. Secondly by imparting direction to the police the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace travelled beyond his domain. It was held by this Court in PLD 2007 Lahore 53 as under:-- "The learned ex-officio Justice of Peace could only pass an order directing registration of a criminal case if a cognizable offence was made out from the application or decline the same. The direction given to the S.H.O. By the learned ex officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. Is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C., hence it was in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law."
' Similarly in PLD 2001 Lahore 84 it was held as under by this Court:-- "That the prerogative for proceedings under section 182, P. P. C. Lies only with the police officer who has moved the machinery of law against the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. By the complainant. No other authority can direct the concerned police officer to proceed against the first informant who has given false information."
8. In the instant case even no F.I.R. Was registered so on the basis of illegal proceedings conducted by the police there was no occasion for the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace to direct the police to proceed under section 182, P.P.C. The provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. Are also relevant for the disposal of the instant petition which provide that no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188, P.P.C. Except a complaint in writing of the concerned public servant or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
9.
10. #TBS
11. Per.LJ
12. #TBE
13. In the light of the above discussion and the case law referred to above I am of the view that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eye of law. The order has been passed on the basis of the illegal proceedings of inquiry conducted by the police before registration of case. When the foundation itself is not sustainable the superstructure built thereon is bound to collapse. In these circumstances this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.