Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 22-A(6), 22-B, 154, 155

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 337-L(ii)

Summary The petitioner challenged the Justice of Peace's refusal to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. regarding an alleged assault and tree-cutting incident at a disputed Dargah. The Court found that the police had already recorded the complaint under Section 155 Cr.P.C. after concluding that no cognizable offence was disclosed, supported by the medical report showing only minor non-cognizable injuries. The petitioner's version was found contradictory because the medical examination predated the alleged incident. Holding that Section 22-A cannot be used to convert a civil dispute into criminal proceedings or settle personal scores, the Court dismissed the petition. Sections Used Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Section 22-A(6), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 Section 22-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 Section 155, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 Two 2-Word Descriptions FIR Refusal Civil Dispute O R D E R Through the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Learned District Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Sujawal in Crl. Misc. Application No.285 of 2025, whereby his application filed under section 22 - A (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for issuance of the directions to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR was declined. Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Petitioner approached learned Ex - Officio Justice of peace to seek compliance of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C, which per his contention local police failed. He contended that from the narration made in   the application made to SHO and Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, the ingredients of an offence cognizable in nature were made out; therefore, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was under an obligation to issue directions for recording the statement of the petitioner. He contended that ex-officio justice of peace failed to exercise its jurisdiction, thus it was a fit case for indulgence by this Court. Mr. Shoukat Pathan, learned counsel for the…