SYED MUHAMMAD ATT1QUE SHAH, J.---Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner namely Muhammad Younis has prayed as under:-- "That on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the impugned order dated: 09.01.2015 passed by learned respondent No, 3 may graciously be set-aside and respondent No, 3 directed to forthwith order registration of case against accused mentioned in the petition under section 22A Cr.P.C"
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner namely Muhammad Younis filed an application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad for registration of case against Khalil ur Rehman and others which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Abbotta bad, who called comments from respondent/SHO Police Station, Mirpur , Abbottabad. That in the meanwhile, on 09.01.2015, Malik Muhammad Naseer , Advocate appeared in the Cour t and submitted wakalatnama on behal f of above persons, which was objected by learned counsel for petitioner but the learned Justice of Peace allowed the opposite counsel to argue the case, hence, the present writ petition.
3. Arguments heard and record available gone through.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that under section 22A, Cr.P.C., the learned Justice of Peace acts in an administrative capacity and his functions are not Judicial or quasi-judicial, therefore, he could neither issue notice to the respondents nor he can accept wakalatnama on their behalf in proceedings under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Learned AAG appeared on behalf of State and assisted by learned counsel for private respondents however . controverted the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner by arguing that there is no bar to issue notices to the private respondents or accept wakalatnama on their behalf.
5. Perusal of the impugned order sheet dated: 09.01.2015 would reveal that though the learned Justice of Peace has not issued any notice to the respo ndent but on the date fixed learned, counsel appeared on behalf of respondents and submitted wakalatnama and the learned Justice of Peace allowed him for arguments.
6. The question that whether the functions of Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. are executive, administrative or quasi-judicial in nature has thoroughly been discussed and decided by the august apex Court in its judgment titled: Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakawal , reported in PLD 2016 SC 581, operative part of which is as under:-- "Function performed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A (6), Cr.P.C.---Such functions being quasi- judicial in nature could not be termed as executive, administrative or ministerial---Said functions were complementary to those of the police and thus did not amount to interference in the investigative domain of the police.
Functions performed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were not executive, administrative or ministerial inasmuch as he did not carry out, manage or deal with things mechanically . Such functions as described in clauses (i), (ii) and
(iii) of Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. were qasi-Judicial as Ex-Officio justice of Peace entertained applications, examined the record, heard the parties passed orders and issued directions with due application of mind. Even lis before him demanded discretion and judgment. Functions so performed could not be termed as executive, administrative or ministerial on any count".
7. Reliance is also placed on case titled: Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. Station House officer and others reported in 2013 PCr .LJ 1 177 which is as under:-
5. Law casts holy duty upon the learned Justice of Peace for examining the petition and other material available on record for determining if any cognizable offence is made out therefrom or not, In this connection, learned Justice of Peace is bound by law to take into consideration contents of petition filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr. P. C. as well as to examine the complainant/petitioner if needed. He may seek a report from the SHO of Police Station concerned in the matter . No doubt spirit of promulgating provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. is that report should not be entered/registered after holding preliminary enquiry but this provision of law has grossly been misused by first informants, who just to satisfy their ego or to take revenge from its opponent, lay false information. Even such first information is also provided in cases involving civil disputes like one relating to execution of an agreement to sell and business transaction etc., as such in order to sift the chaff from grain, it has become imperative for Court to have a report from Police Station. Further in appropriate cases, the person against whom a direction for registration of case is sought, may also be summoned in the Court for showing cause as to why direction for registration of case should not be issued against him. The calling of aggrieved person is based on analogy that SHO before submitting report to Court, summons both parties and after hearing them dispatch es same to Court with his own finding thus if that report of SHO, is considered, in which both parties have already been heard then there is no harm in calling that party in the Court for arriving at just conclusion. This would help in curbing multiplicity of litigation and work load could be managed besides saving precious public time. This practice if adopted would advance the principle of natural justice i,e, audi alteram partem .
6. It has further been experienced that learned Justice of Peace now-a-days have adopted a practice of referring the matters to police authorities for implementation of their directions for registration of case, when petitioner again complains through separate application, complains in different attitude of SHO towa rds implementation of direction.
This practice adopted by Courts has increased, tremendously , workload in higher judiciary . It is Justice of Peace, who is competent and equally enjoys jurisdiction to call upon SHO of Police Station concerned, where direction was sent for implementation, to appear in person in Court for showing cause as to why he did not comply with the orders and to take coercive measures against him till the direction is implemented. The Courts should be assertive and should jealously watch implementations of their own orders. The matter cannot be left at sweet-will of persons, who are already reluctant in performing their duties, bestowed upon them by law. If a Judicial Of %fails to implement his own order , then he could be treated as an inefficient Judicial Officer , which observation may be reflected in his annual confidential report by his initiating authority .
7. Thus crux of the discussion is that a Justice of Peace should apply his legal mind to facts and circumstances of matters under his consideration, determine cognizability of an offence himself even if he has to examine complainant or to summon respondent and then to make clear and unambiguous direction, for taking proceedings under section 154, Cr . P. C. which he shall himself implement instead of taking help of officials of police hierarchy",
8. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the functions performed by Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. are quasi-judicial in nature and learned Justice of Peace in the instant case has not committed any illegality or irregularity while accepting the wakalatnama on behalf of respondents and allowed the learned counsel for arguments, as there is no bar to hear the other side before passing an appropriate order .
9. Thus, the instant writ petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.