PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has ruled that a ‘Justice of Peace’ is empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to order registration of cases in cognisable offences without conducting a detailed inquiry into the allegations.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Inamullah Khan rejected a joint petition of three police officials challenging an order of ‘Justice of Peace’ to register FIR against them for allegedly keeping a citizen in illegal confinement for 14 days.

Additional session judge Imtiaz Ali, in his capacity as a Justice of Peace, had accepted on Dec 3, 2025, the plea of an alleged detainee, Mian Amjid Khan, under Section 22-A of CrPC and ordered FIR registration against the three officers, including SHO Rafique Khan, sub-inspector Humayun Khan and constable Usman.

The detainee was allegedly recovered by a court’s bailiff from a room of a CNG station here.

The three police officials challenged the said order claiming that the respondent (Mian Amjid) was arrested in connection with two cases registered against him.

“Having examined the impugned order in the light of the settled legal principles, we are unable to persuade ourselves that the learned Justice of Peace committed any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or patent illegality warranting interference by this court,” the bench ruled in its 24-page detailed judgement.

“The court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law after obtaining the version of the police authorities and upon being prima facie satisfied that the allegations disclosed commission of cognisable offences. Whether those allegations ultimately withstand judicial scrutiny is a matter which must necessarily await the outcome of a lawful investigation and, if occasion so arises, trial before the court,” it observed.

The court added that the impugned order, when examined in its entirety, revealed that the learned Justice of Peace exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 22-A(6) of CrPC for the limited purpose contemplated by law. No finding touching upon the guilt or innocence of the petitioners has been recorded, according to it.

“The order merely facilitates commencement of an investigation into allegations which, according to the learned Justice of Peace, prima facie disclose commission of cognisable offences. Such exercise neither suffers from jurisdictional defect nor can it be characterised as arbitrary, capricious or without lawful authority.”

The court declared as untenable the submission of the petitioners’ counsel that the Justice of Peace should have embarked upon a detailed inquiry regarding the correctness of the allegations.

“Such an approach would not only exceed the limits of jurisdiction conferred by Section 22-A of CrPC, but would also prejudice the investigation itself,” it ruled, adding that the law deliberately maintained a distinction between the stage of registration of information, the stage of investigation and the stage of adjudication.

“Blurring these distinct stages would seriously impair the administration of criminal justice,” it observed.

The bench declared that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Justice of Peace was essentially supervisory and administrative in nature.

Published in Dawn, July 16th, 2026