ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---- The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayer:- "In view of above made humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the fake medical opinion dated 11.07.2018 may kindly be canceled and order dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta, may kindly be set aside and the application moved before trial court may kindly be ordered to be allowed, in the interest of justice".
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (Dr. Muhammad Arif son of Haji Muhammad Umar) filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.', against the private respondents before the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta, with the averments that the petitioner being a complainant in the FIR No.66 of 2018 for an offence under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. against the respondents Nos.2 to 6 at Police Station Gowalmandi and challan of the case was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta.
During the course of the trial, the petitio ner's brother also moved an application to the Secretary and Director General, Government of Balochistan, Health Department, Quetta, for discarding findings of the Police Surgeon Medical Complex Hospital, Quetta, dated 11.07.2018, but the concerned officials never ever consider the application.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the issuance of fake/bogus report dated 11,07.2018 by the medical board, the petitioner's brother also issued a legal notice dated 21.02.2019 to the concerned board members including respondent No.2, out of which two members Dr. Ehsanullah Shah and Dr. Ahmed Shah replied the legal notice dated 20.03.2019 by stating that they have never ever issued any medical opinion or decided the MLC which also shows the mala fide intention and biasness of the respondent No.2. It is alleged that the said doctors/members who issued a fake report which caused great prejudice to the petitioner , but the respond ent No.7 (SHO) did not lodge a report. The petitioner filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., before the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta, and the same was dismissed on 20.11.2019, whereafter the instant petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the arguments in the light of the law and facts on the record. In exercise of powe r under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., the Justice of Peace is not supposed to proceed and act mechanically by simply considering the version of events narrated by a party applying for registration, but instead, in order to safeguard against misuse or abuse of such process, must apply his mind and satisfy himself that prima-facie, there is some material available on the record to support such version. Reliance is placed in the case reported as Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal (PLD 2016 SC 581), wherein the following was observed: "2. The past experience of around 14 years (since the insertion of these provisions into the Code of Criminal Procedure) would unmistakably reveal that these provisions especially Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though beneficial and advantageous to the public at large, yet in myriad cases, it has , been misused and abused.
Once a false criminal case is registered against an individual, it becomes exceedingly difficult for him/her to get rid of it. The time and money which is spent on acquiring a clean chit by way of cancellation of the case or acquittal is not hard to fathom. There is no denying the fact that at times false and frivolous cases are got registered just to humble and harass the opposite party . In such a milieu, powers given to an ex-of ficio Justice of the Peace under subsection (6) of Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue appropriate directions on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person for registration of a criminal case (Clause-i) and for transfer of investigation from one police officer to another (Clause-ii) though efficacious and expeditious besides being at the doorstep, but at the same time, these provisions should not be unbridled or open-ended. These provisions must be defined, structured and its contour delineated to obviate misuse by influential and unscrupulous elements. Therefore: -
(i) The ex-officio Justice of the Peace, before issuance of a direction on a complaint for the non-registration of a criminal case under subsection (6) (i) of section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure must satisfy himself that sufficient material is available on the record, such as application to the concerned SHO for registration of the criminal case and on his refusal or reluctance, complaint to the higher police office rs i.e. DPO, RPO etc., to show that the aggrieved person, before invoking the powers of ex-officio Justice of the Peace, had recourse to the high ups in the police hierarchy .
(ii) ........."
5. The logic behind the conferring of powers upon the Justice of Peace was to enable the aggrieved person to approach the Justice of Peace for the redressal of his grievances, i.e. non-registration of FIR's, transfer of investigation to the courts situated at the district level or Session or at particular Sessions Division. At times, this is being observed that the office of Justice of Peace is being misused by the litigants in order to settle their scores or sometimes to convert the civil litigation into criminal litigation and to use the powers under this section to the damage of the rival party for certain ulterior motives, which was never the intention of the legislature.
Proceedings before Justice of Peace are quasi-judicial and are not executive, administrative or ministerial to deal with the matters mechanically rather the same is quasi-judicial powers in every case before him demands discretion and judicial observations and that is too after hearing the parties.
6. Now dilating upon the merits of the instant petition, the petitioner claimed that the private respondents filed an application before the medical board to challenge the MLC issued in favour of the brother of the petitioner , but subsequently when the brother of the petitioner given legal notice to the concerned doctors/members who replied that they never issued any medical report in respect of certificate. It is important to mention here that brother of the petitioner filed an FIR No.66 of 2018 for an offence under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. and Police Surgeon Dr. Ali Mardan Mengal issued a medical certifica te in his favour . The challan was submitted before the learned trial court and the same is fixed for prosecution evidence. The genuineness and authenticity of the medical board can be determined by the trial court in FIR No.66 of 2018. In such circumstances, no case is made out for registration of the FIR.
The ground was, taken by the petitioner in his application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., appear to be whimsical and in this view of the matter the order passed by the learned Justice of Peace is in accordance with the law, and there is no illegality , irregularity pointed out by the petitioner; therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.