State vs Mustafa Iqbal Ss — 2025 MLD 1991 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

State VS Mustafa Iqbal Ss. 22-a, 22-B & 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 511, 342, 380, 452, 506(ii), 148 & 149---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, power of---Transfer of investigation---Scope---application filed by the respondent under S.22-a & 22-B, Cr.P.C., was allowed with the direction to the SSP (Operation) to entrust investigation of the case FIR a named (specific) aSP/SDPO---Legality---Record reflected that FIR No.101 dated 12.02.2025 was registered on the complaint of complainant "MN" against accused/respondent---Respondent-accused, thereafter, moved an application before the SSP (Investigation), for transfer of investigation, followed by an application under Ss. 22-a & 22-B, Cr.P.C., before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Said application was allowed, vide order dated 08.03.2025, with direction to entrust the investigation to "aRQ", aSP/SDPO---SSP (Investigation), due to the transfer of the said officer, assigned the case to another officer---However, on 21.05.2025, the Justice of Peace issued further directions for compliance of the earlier order dated, 08.03.2025, insisting on entrusting the matter to the said named officer and sought an explanation from the SSP (Investigation)---Directive of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace requiring the SSP (Operations) to entrust the investigation of FIR No.101/2025 specifically to aSP/SDPO "aRQ", did not fall within the lawful parameters of S.22-a(6),Cr.P.C.---Said provisions abundantly made it clear that while an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace might, in appropriate circumstances, issue directions for transfer of investigation from one officer to another, the statute did not authorize such authority to dictate the name of a particular officer to whom investigation must be entrusted---Legislative intent was to provide a supervisory check to ensure fair investigation, not to confer power of administrative control or appointment over the police force---any interpretation otherwise would amount to enlarging the scope of S.22-a(6), Cr.P.C., beyond its express language and settled judicial precedents---authority to assign or re-assign investigation to a particular officer vested exclusively in the competent police hierarchy and any insistence upon nomination of a named officer constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the executive domain---Reiteration of the earlier direction through the subsequent order dated 21.05.2025, despite the transfer of the said officer, further demonstrated a departure from the limits prescribed under S.22-a(6), Cr.P.C., and an overreach into matters squarely falling within the administrative discretion of the police authorities---Police, being an executive organ of the State, was mandated to conduct investigation independently and judicial interference in the operational aspect of assigning Officers undermined that independence and carried the risk of eroding confidence in the impartiality of the investigative process---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

State vs Mustafa Iqbal Ss — 2025 MLD 1991 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD