Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 5554 2025 SLD 5554 = 2025 YLR 1958 = 2026 PLJ 1
High Court (AJ&K)
Petition No. 114 of 2025, decided on 30th April, 2025.
Before Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J
Babar Ali Khan for Petitioner. Sikandar Raftaz for
Respondent No. 4. A.A.G. for Official
Respondents.

ADAM RAFIQUE and 4 others---Petitioners

VERSUS

The STATE through Advocate General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 3 others---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561A,22A

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 22-A---Inherent power of High Court---Power of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Addition or deletion of charges---Scope---Petitioner alleged that Justice of Peace had no jurisdiction to direct the investigating agency for adding or substituting any particular offence, but he did---Validity---Justice of Peace could not give directions to the investigating agency for insertion of a particular offence---Though Justice of Peace had the authority to give certain other directions but had no jurisdiction to issue such type of direction as given in the instant case---Petition was allowed and impugned order was set-aside. 2016 PCr.LJ 771 and 2004 YLR 2266 rel. Date of hearing: 30th April, 2025. JUDGMENT CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J.--FOREWARD: The captioned application has been filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for setting aside impugned order dated 13.03.2025 recorded by learned Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Bhimber. STANCE OF THE PETITIONER: The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that under section 22A Cr.P.C. the learned Justice of Peace has got no jurisdictional competence to direct the investigating agency for adding or substituting any particular offence rather Justice of Peace can give directions in certain other matters i.e. for registration of FIR, for change of investigation from one officer to another and for fair investigation to the investigating agency, which are mentioned in the relevant statute, hence, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that impugned order may be nullified. REFUTATION OF THE RESPONDENTS: The learned counsel for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register