PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench adjourned the hearing into a petition challenging the powers of the district and sessions judges to order registration of FIR under the ‘Justice of Peace’ provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the enforcement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Public Services Act, 2014.

Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Roohul Amin Khan was hearing the petition filed by area manager Uzair Khan of a private enterprise, Greenstar Social Marketing, regarding the registration of an FIR against him and two other persons on the directives of an additional district and sessions judge for the alleged breach of trust on the complaint of a distribution company, Muller and Phipps.

The petitioner said after the enforcement of the KP Right to Public Services Act in 2014, the powers exercised by the district and sessions judges of the ‘Justice of Peace’ under Section 22-A of the CrPC had become redundant in the province.

He added that the company had been distributing the products of his enterprise in different areas.

“One of the officials of the distribution company has dumped some of their products with two shopkeepers, while those shopkeepers claimed that they didn’t need those products in such a large quantity. A dispute later arose between the distribution company and his enterprise over the payment of the disputed items,” he said.

The petitioner said the company approached the dispute resolution council in Mardan, which turned down its request.

He added that the company had contacted the additional district and sessions judge under Section 22-A of CrPC and the court had order registration of an FIR on Aug 5, 2017, after which an FIR was registered at the Mardan B-Division police station on Sept 25, 2017.

Sohail Akhtar, lawyer for the distribution company, asked the bench for time to prepare his case. The bench accepted the request and adjourned the hearing to a date to be fixed later.

Noor Alam Khan, lawyer for the petitioner, said under Section 4 of the KP Right to Public Services Act (RPSA), the provincial government had to specify any service as public service by notifying it in the official gazette.

He said Section 5 of the Act stated that it would be mandatory for a designated officer to provide public service within the specified time and that if the officer failed to do so, the applicant could file an appeal with the appellate authority.

The lawyer said a period had been specified for the registration of FIR by the relevant police station’s SHO and that in case the SHO didn’t register FIR, the complainant could file an appeal with the relevant district police officer against him.

He said the RPSA had been given the overriding effect over other relevant laws in the field, which meant that after the enforcement of that Act, the laws, which empowered other authorities to address the grievance of a person regarding non-registration of an FIR, had become redundant.

Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2017