When the police refuse to register a criminal case, fail to perform their duties, or conduct an investigation unfairly, an aggrieved person may seek relief from an ex officio Justice of the Peace. Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“CrPC”) form part of this framework, providing an accessible mechanism for addressing police inaction and misconduct. However, these provisions do not establish an alternative criminal trial or confer unlimited authority over police investigations. [1]
Understanding the distinction between the powers conferred by Section 22-A, the duties prescribed by Section 22-B, and the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts is essential when deciding which remedy to pursue.
Who Is an Ex Officio Justice of the Peace?
Section 25 CrPC provides that Sessions Judges and, upon nomination by them, Additional Sessions Judges are ex officio Justices of the Peace within and for the whole district in which they serve. The expression ex officio means that the authority attaches to the relevant office, subject to the nomination requirement for Additional Sessions Judges. This is distinct from the appointment of Justices of the Peace by the Provincial Government under Section 22. [2]
An application must therefore be presented before the competent forum for the relevant district. A judicial officer does not acquire Section 22-A jurisdiction merely because they preside over a criminal court or special court; the necessary statutory authority must exist. [2]
The Three Principal Powers Under Section 22-A(6)
Although applications are commonly described as applications under “Sections 22-A and 22-B,” the specific power to issue directions to police authorities is contained in Section 22-A(6). It addresses three categories of complaint: non-registration of a criminal case; transfer of investigation from one police officer to another; and neglect, failure, or excess by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties.
1. Directions Concerning Non-Registration of a First Information Report (FIR)
Section 22-A(6)(i) provides a remedy where the police fail to register a criminal case despite receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.
This power must be read with Section 154 CrPC, which governs the recording of information relating to cognizable offences. In Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539), the Supreme Court emphasised the police obligation to record an FIR. Doubts about the ultimate truth of an allegation do not, by themselves, justify refusing to record information that discloses a cognizable offence; investigation is the process through which the facts are examined. [3]
The distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences remains important. Section 22-A cannot be used to insist upon a Section 154 FIR where the information discloses only a non-cognizable offence. Such information falls within the separate framework of Section 155 CrPC. [4]
Nevertheless, an application does not automatically entitle its author to an FIR direction. In Munawar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Mallano and others (2024 SCMR 985), the Supreme Court cautioned against misuse of these provisions and mechanical orders for registration. The Justice of the Peace must examine the application and available material without converting the proceedings into a trial. [5]
2. Directions Concerning Transfer of Investigation
Section 22-A(6)(ii) concerns the transfer of an investigation from one police officer to another. It is relevant where an applicant can substantiate concerns about the fairness or proper conduct of an investigation.
The purpose is to secure a lawful investigation—not to obtain an investigating officer who will endorse a particular party’s account. A request should therefore identify concrete defects or circumstances requiring intervention rather than merely express dissatisfaction with an unfavourable development. The Sindh High Court has stressed that investigation and reinvestigation serve to discover evidence and place it before the competent court, not simply to satisfy a complainant. [6]
The stage of proceedings also matters. Questions involving further investigation after submission of a police report require careful consideration of the existing record, applicable law, and judicial proceedings. Section 22-A should not be treated as an unrestricted opportunity to restart an investigation whenever a party dislikes its outcome. [6]
3. Directions Against Police Neglect, Failure, or Excess
Section 22-A(6)(iii) extends beyond FIR registration. It authorises appropriate directions concerning police neglect, failure, or excess in the performance of official functions and duties. The essential connection is to a police authority’s legal responsibilities.
An applicant relying on this provision should identify the particular police act or omission, the duty involved, and the corrective direction sought. Alleged harassment, for example, should be explained through identifiable incidents rather than a general allegation. The provision concerns lawful police accountability; it does not create a general power to decide private disputes or provide immunity from legitimate police action. That limitation follows from the expressly defined scope of Section 22-A(6).
Are These Powers Administrative or Judicial?
The leading authority is Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581). The Supreme Court held that the functions performed under Section 22-A(6) are quasi-judicial: the Justice of the Peace examines the record, hears the parties, exercises judgment, and issues directions through the application of judicial mind.
This distinguishes those functions from the executive, administrative, preventive, and ministerial responsibilities found elsewhere in Sections 22-A and 22-B. The decision rejected earlier characterisations of Section 22-A(6) functions as merely administrative. A reasoned decision, rather than the routine forwarding of a complaint to the police, is therefore required. [1]
What About the Other Powers in Section 22-A?
Section 22-A is not confined to subsection (6). Its earlier subsections address specified arrest powers, the prompt handing over of an arrested person to the nearest police station, and the calling of police assistance to apprehend persons or prevent crime and breaches of the peace. Subject to provincial rules, they also address identity certification, document verification, and attestation.
These provisions explain why it would be inaccurate to say that a Justice of the Peace has “no arrest powers whatsoever.” The correct distinction is between those separately conferred statutory powers and the limited function of deciding an application for police directions under Section 22-A(6).
What Duties Does Section 22-B Impose?
Section 22-B prescribes duties rather than a separate, unrestricted power to order FIR registration.
Subject to provincial rules, a Justice of the Peace receiving information about an offence or breach of the peace within the local area must make inquiries and report the result in writing to the nearest Magistrate and the officer in charge of the nearest police station. For a cognizable offence, the provision also requires steps to prevent interference with the place of occurrence or removal of anything from it.
Upon a written request from an investigating police officer under Chapter XIV, the Justice of the Peace must assist the investigation and may be required to record a statement made under expectation of death by a person against whom a crime is believed to have been committed. These duties do not make the Justice of the Peace the trial court. [7]
Important Limits on the Jurisdiction
An FIR Is Not a Finding of Guilt—and Arrest Is Not Automatic
An FIR initiates the criminal process; it does not establish that the nominated persons committed the offence.
In Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595), the Supreme Court explained that a person should not ordinarily be arrested merely because their name appears in an FIR. Arrest requires sufficient justification under the applicable law and rules. Consequently, an order directing FIR registration should not be mistaken for a determination of guilt or an automatic requirement to arrest everyone named. [8]
A Different Version Does Not Ordinarily Justify a Second FIR
Sughran Bibi also establishes that different versions of the same incident should ordinarily be investigated within the existing criminal case, with subsequent accounts recorded under Section 161 CrPC, rather than through separate FIRs.
A Section 22-A application should therefore disclose any existing FIR concerning the occurrence. The remedy for an ignored version may involve its proper recording and investigation—not registration of another FIR merely because the applicant disputes the first informant’s account. [8]
Criminal Proceedings Must Not Become a Means of Settling Private Scores
A criminal application should address an alleged offence, not serve as leverage in a personal dispute. The Sindh High Court has reiterated that Sections 22-A and 22-B are intended to ensure lawful police performance, not to facilitate victimisation or personal vendettas. [4]
The practical question is therefore not simply whether the parties have a commercial or property disagreement, but whether the facts relied upon disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence. A civil setting does not answer that question either way; the complaint must be assessed against the requirements of criminal law. [3]
The Justice of the Peace Cannot Assume Every Power of a Criminal Court
The statutory capacity in which an officer acts matters. Section 22-A(6) does not itself confer the general powers to grant bail, convict or acquit an accused, or quash criminal proceedings. Those remedies require their own legal foundation and the competent forum. The fact that the same judicial officer may exercise other powers in a different capacity does not enlarge this particular jurisdiction. [2]
Preparing an Application Under Section 22-A CrPC
For non-registration complaints, the documentary history of approaching the police is important. In applying Younas Abbas, the courts have required material showing an application to the relevant Station House Officer and, upon refusal or reluctance, recourse to senior police authorities. Copies, acknowledgements, and responses should therefore be preserved. [5]
A useful drafting approach is to present a short chronology, identify the police station and district, explain the alleged offence or investigative failure, disclose related proceedings, and state the precise direction requested. Relevant supporting material should be attached rather than merely referred to. Applicants should also be prepared for police comments and a hearing of the affected parties; recent Sindh High Court decisions have emphasised the importance of that opportunity before FIR directions are issued. [5]
A focused request is preferable to an omnibus prayer demanding registration, arrest, a particular investigative conclusion, and punishment in the same application.
Other Remedies and Challenges to an Order
A Section 22-A application is not the only route into the criminal justice system. A private complaint under Section 200 CrPC may be available before the competent Magistrate. That is a distinct procedure, involving the complainant’s allegations and supporting evidence, rather than merely a request that police be directed to register an FIR. [7]
An order of the ex officio Justice of the Peace may also be subject to High Court scrutiny through the appropriate proceedings. Article 199 judicial review can address legally defective orders, but it should not be approached as an unrestricted rehearing of every factual disagreement. The available remedy, its maintainability, and the grounds of challenge require separate assessment. [4]
Access to Justice Through the Correct Remedy
The value of this framework lies in the balance it seeks to achieve: effective recourse against police inaction without allowing criminal procedure to become an instrument of pressure. For an applicant, the strongest starting point is a clearly identified legal wrong, a documented history, and relief directed to the actual statutory power.
Legum’s criminal law practice in Karachi advises and represents complainants and accused persons, including in Section 22-A applications, investigation-related matters, bail proceedings, and criminal litigation. Choosing the correct remedy at the outset helps keep the proceedings focused on the protection and enforcement of legal rights.
This article provides general information on Pakistani law and is not a substitute for advice on a particular case. Applicable provincial amendments, special statutes, and the facts of the matter should be reviewed before proceedings are initiated.
Judicial references and legal resources
The court links below lead to Sindh High Court decisions supporting the discussion. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the article are discussed or applied in those decisions.
Statutory texts are available in Legum’s legal resources.
- Quasi-judicial functions: Younas Abbas — PLD 2016 SC 581
- M/s. Shakarganj Limited and another v. Special Judge (Central-I), Karachi — 2026 SHC KHI 702
- FIR registration: Muhammad Bashir — PLD 2007 SC 539
- Limits of Section 22-A, non-cognizable offences and judicial review
- Munawar Alam Khan — 2024 SCMR 985; police recourse and reasoned orders
- Transfer of investigation, further investigation and existing proceedings
- Section 22-B duties and private complaints under Section 200
- Sughran Bibi — PLD 2018 SC 595: arrest and multiple versions of one incident
