Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 22-A(6)

Summary – Legal Core Points Relief Sought: Petitioner sought directions against police authorities and requested transfer of the inquiry to an impartial officer, alleging bias/mala fide on the part of the SP Rural Zone. Petitioner's Grievance: A dispute arose from agreements to sell property. The petitioner alleged that the police officer coerced him into entering another agreement and was acting in league with the opposing party. Key Legal Issue: Whether the petitioner could directly invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 against alleged police neglect, failure, or excess. Court's Finding: Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. specifically empowers the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to issue directions regarding: Non-registration of a criminal case; Transfer of investigation; and Neglect, failure, or excess by police authorities. Legal Principle: The remedy before the Justice of Peace is an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy. Therefore, the petitioner should approach that forum instead of directly approaching the High Court. Outcome: Writ petition dismissed in limine as not maintainable due to availability of an alternate remedy. The Court deliberately did not examine the merits of the allegations.       judgment sheet Through the instant writ petition, petitioner Malik Naeem Akhtar prays for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 (IG, DIG-Operations, SSP, and SP-Rural Zone ICT) to act in accordance with law, without fear or favour and further prayed that respondent No.1 (IG ICT) be directed to entrust the inquiry to any impartial and unbiased Officer other than respondent No. 4(SP-Rural Zone ICT), as the said respondent is in league with respondent No.5 (Raza Saleem), on whose application inquiry is in progress. Learned counsel argued that petitioner and respondent No.6 had entered into an agreement to sell some landed properties but same could not be materialized due to non-fulfillment of the obligations on the part of respondent No.6; that respondent No. 6 then submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 (DIG-Operations ICT) which was marked to the respondent No. 4(SP-Rural Zone ICT), and on his…