IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Revision Application No.S-66 of 2021.

Applicants: Jamaluddin @ Jumma Khan and others Through, Mr. Muhammad Asim Malik, Advocate.

Respondent No.3: Mst. Jadul through, Mr. Bahawalddin Shaikh, Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG

Date of hearing 20-08-2021.

Date of decision 20-08-2021.

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through instant Revision Application the applicants challenged the orders dated: 22-04-2021 and 07-05-2021 passed by Justice of Peace/ Session Judge Sukkur in Cr. Misc. Application No: 1025 of 2021, filed by the respondent No: 03.

2, The facts in brief are that, the Respondent No: 3 filed application under section 22-A and B Cr.P.C before the Justice of Peace/ Session Judge Sukkur, for the following prayers:-

(a). To direct the respondent No. 1 to record the statement of applicant as per her verbatim and if cognizable offence is made out then same may be incorporated in 154 Cr.P.C book.

(b). To grant any other relief, which deems, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3. The Justice of Peace, Sukkur after calling reports from the concerned SHO and hearing the parties passed order dated: 22-04-2021 and by holding that the grievance of the applicant falling within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, the application was converted into petition under Section 3 and 4 Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, called reports from the concerned SHO and Mukhtiarkar as required under section 5 of the ibid Act. After the above order the Justice of Peace has continued the proceedings and after the reports received from the concerned SHO and Mukhtiarkar again passed order dated: 07-05-2021, whereby took cognizance of offence and issued BWs against the applicants.

4. Learned Counsel for applicants contended that the Justice of Peace has no jurisdiction to convert application under section 22-A,B Cr.P.C into proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, nor has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act. Lastly, he contended that the Justice of peace has no jurisdiction to entertain the matters of civil nature while exercising jurisdiction falling under section 22-A & B Cr.P.C and prayed that the impugned orders may be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 contended that the Justice of Peace has passed the orders considering the facts and the circumstances of the case; that from the reports submitted by the concerned SHO and the Mukhtiarkar offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, was made out, therefore, the Justice of Peace has rightly took cognizance of offence and issued BWs against the applicants; that the impugned orders are in accordance with law and the application of the applicants is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State contended that while exercising jurisdiction under section 22-A&B Cr.P.C. the Justice of Peace has no power to convert application under section 22-A @ B Cr.P.C into proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act; that illegal orders were passed by the Justice of peace and the same are liable to be set-aside. He relied upon the case of Mukhtiar Ali V. The State and 4 others (2019 P.Cr.L.J 1201).

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record with their able assistance.

8. This Court in case of Mir Muhammad Shaikh V. The State (PLD 2020 Sindh 556), has already decided the powers and jurisdiction of the Justice of peace in detail and need not to repeat in every case. However, to understand the provisions relating to the powers of Justice Peace and from perusal of sections 22 and 25 of the Cr.P.C, it is once again clear that an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has the power to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its function and duties. The said powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are very much limited which have been given to aid, assist and authorize the criminal jurisdiction system. As such, section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C, does not confer any jurisdiction on the Ex-officio Justice of Peace vested in it to convert applications for registration of FIR etc into proceeding under the Illegal Dispossession Act and took cognizance of the offence under the said Act.

9. Following the case of Mir Muhammad Shaikh supra, this Revision Application is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur dated 22.04.2021 and 07-05-2021 are hereby declared as without lawful authority and having no legal effect, resultantly, same are set-aside. The proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 pending before the Justice of peace/ Session Judge Sukkur are quashed. The application filed by the respondent No: 3 before the Justice of peace Sukkur is deemed to be pending and the same shall be decided by the Justice of Peace in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

10. Revision Application is allowed in the above terms.

J U D G E