22-A CrPC in Pakistan: How to Get FIR Registered When Police Refuse
Step-by-step legal guide for Pakistan: what to do when the SHO refuses to register an FIR, how Section 22-A CrPC works, when courts intervene, and when they refuse.
If police refuse to register your FIR, the first question is not “Should I file 22-A immediately?” The first question is whether your facts disclose a cognizable offence. That single issue determines the correct legal route, the strength of your petition, and whether the Justice of Peace is likely to help you. This guide explains the full process in plain language, while preserving the key Pakistani case law that actually matters in practice.
- Step 1: Determine whether the facts disclose a cognizable offence.
- Step 2: Create proof of approach to the police: SHO application, then SP/DPO application, then courier/receipt and delivery proof.
- Step 3: If no lawful action is taken, file a 22-A/22-B CrPC petition before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
- Step 4: If the matter is non-cognizable or mainly civil, choose the proper remedy instead, often a Section 200 CrPC private complaint or civil proceedings.
This article is the main legal guide. If you specifically want a ready format, annexures checklist, and drafting mistakes, read the companion post: 22-A CrPC Petition Draft in Pakistan: Format, Required Documents, and Common Mistakes.
- 1) Why police refuse FIR registration
- 2) What the Justice of Peace actually does
- 3) Cognizable vs non-cognizable offences
- 4) No inquiry before FIR: the rule
- 5) The administrative route: SHO to SP/DPO
- 6) Filing a 22-A petition: what the court checks
- 7) How to use case law in real practice
- 8) When courts dismiss 22-A petitions
- 9) Civil disputes vs criminal offences
- 10) If the offence is non-cognizable
- 11) What happens after an FIR is ordered
- 12) The second FIR issue
- 13) Sample 22-A petition draft
- 14) FAQs
- 15) Case law index
1) Why police refuse FIR registration
In practice, FIR refusal usually does not come as a formal written refusal. It comes in the form of excuses: “This is a civil matter”, “We will first conduct inquiry”, “Bring more witnesses”, or simply “Come later”. The practical answer is not to argue endlessly at the police station. The correct response is to convert the grievance into a clear written record and move through the legal ladder properly.
- “It is a civil dispute.” Ask whether the facts show force, fraud, hurt, theft, criminal intimidation, kidnapping, misappropriation, or only title/possession/accounting issues.
- “We will inquire first.” Submit the complaint in writing and secure proof of delivery. Pre-registration truth-testing is widely disapproved where a cognizable offence appears.
- “Bring witnesses first.” Witnesses matter, but written reporting still matters more. File the complaint and preserve copies.
- “We will see.” Do not wait indefinitely. Move from SHO to SP/DPO and then to 22-A if required.
2) What the Justice of Peace actually does
The Justice of Peace exists as a practical district-level judicial forum to address police inaction, refusal, excess, and related grievances. It is not meant to be a ceremonial office. It is meant to be useful.
Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore, 2005 PLD 470 (Lahore High Court), discusses the historical and comparative evolution of the institution of Justice of Peace and its wider role.
Mst. Farhiha Ahmaree v. Station House Officer, 2025 YLR 875 (Karachi High Court), explains that Section 22-A(6) provides a forum at the doorstep of the people and that such proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, requiring application of mind after hearing.
The Justice of Peace is not there to decide the entire case finally. The main issue at this stage is whether the narration discloses a cognizable offence and whether lawful police action has been wrongly withheld.
3) Cognizable vs non-cognizable offences
This is the legal switch that changes everything. If the facts disclose a cognizable offence, the police can investigate without a Magistrate’s order. If the matter is non-cognizable, police cannot investigate without an order under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Seeta Ram v. State, 2025 SCMR 2028 (Supreme Court), explains the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and the legal consequences flowing from Sections 2(f), 2(n), 155, 156, and 157 CrPC.
It follows that in a cognizable case, Section 156 CrPC empowers the officer in charge of the police station to investigate without order of a Magistrate. In a non-cognizable case, Section 155 CrPC places a legal restriction on investigation unless there is a specific order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2).
The judgment also emphasizes that the use of the word “shall” in Sections 155 and 156 CrPC makes it a mandatory statutory duty of the officer in charge of a police station to enter such information in the prescribed register.
If the information relates to the commission of a cognizable offence, the officer in charge has no option except to enter it in the relevant book prescribed for that purpose. In a non-cognizable matter, information must still be entered, but investigation cannot begin without the Magistrate’s order.
For cognizable matters: “This information discloses a cognizable offence; registration under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory, and investigation may follow under Section 156 CrPC.”
For non-cognizable matters: “The information may be entered, but investigation requires an order of the competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC.”
4) No inquiry before FIR: the rule
One of the most common unlawful tactics is to start an “inquiry” or “verification” before registration, even where the facts disclose a cognizable offence. Courts have repeatedly warned against using pre-registration inquiry as a barrier to Section 154 CrPC. In simple terms: register first, investigate after.
Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace, 2024 PCrLJ 351 (Lahore High Court), holds that Section 157 CrPC read with Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules, 1934, cannot be used before registration under Section 154 CrPC. Where the information discloses a cognizable offence, the SHO cannot test credibility first in order to refuse registration.
Tariq Mehmood v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 86 (Lahore High Court), reiterates that the SHO cannot determine the truth or falsity of the version at the stage of registration. If a cognizable offence appears, registration must come first and investigation afterwards.
Muhammad Azad v. Muhammad Saleem, 2020 YLRN 114 (High Court AJK), observes that inquiry before registration is not permissible and may itself cast doubt upon the later handling of the matter.
“The SHO refused registration and instead initiated a pre-registration inquiry, although the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence. Such practice has been disapproved in Arsalan Raza (2024 PCrLJ 351), Tariq Mehmood (2025 YLR 86), and Muhammad Azad (2020 YLRN 114).”
5) The administrative route: SHO to SP/DPO
Before filing 22-A, it is usually wise — and often necessary in practice — to show that the complainant approached the police hierarchy properly. Many otherwise arguable petitions fail because the file contains no proof that the SHO and then higher police authorities were approached.
Ahsan Khalid v. Station House Officer, P.S. Sachal Malir, 2024 YLR 925 (Karachi High Court), indicates that the court should satisfy itself that the applicant approached the SHO with proper receipt or diary proof and then moved the higher police hierarchy under due receipt, but with no effect.
Minimum safe checklist
- SHO application: submit a written complaint and keep a copy. Try to obtain receiving or diary number.
- SP/DPO application: send the same complaint to SP/DPO or SP Complaints.
- Courier and delivery proof: preserve courier receipt, tracking, and proof of delivery.
6) Filing a 22-A petition: what the court checks
A good 22-A petition is not supposed to be lengthy. It is supposed to be clear. In most cases, the court asks four basic questions:
- Does the narration disclose a cognizable offence?
- Did the applicant approach the SHO and the higher police hierarchy with proof?
- Is the dispute criminal in nature, or is it a civil matter being dressed as criminal?
- Are the basic facts complete — date, time, place, names, witnesses, injury, loss, documents?
Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 2815 (Lahore High Court), shows that where the core details — such as date, time, place, and witnesses — are missing, the Justice of Peace may legitimately refuse direction.
Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh, 2024 SCMR 1123 (Supreme Court), clarifies that the Justice of Peace does not act as an investigating agency or prosecutor. The office exists to determine whether the complaint discloses a cognizable case requiring lawful police action.
Munawar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Mallano, 2024 SCMR 985 (Supreme Court), warns against mechanical exercise of powers and underscores that judicial discretion must be used carefully to prevent misuse.
7) How to use case law in real practice
Case law is most effective when it is used as a tool, not as decoration. The point is not to throw ten citations at the court. The point is to use the right citation for the right objection.
A) When police say the matter is non-cognizable
Use this case when police try to confuse the procedural route. It helps you explain the legal difference between cognizable and non-cognizable matters and frame the correct relief.
B) When police insist on inquiry first
Use these authorities when the SHO says “we are verifying first.” Their combined effect supports the rule that in cognizable cases registration comes first and investigation comes later.
C) When the court asks whether you approached the police hierarchy
This authority supports the practical importance of approaching the SHO and higher hierarchy with proof before invoking 22-A.
D) When the opposite side demands a mini-trial before FIR
This case helps keep the hearing focused on the real issue: whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not whether the entire dispute should be decided then and there.
E) When the court is cautious about misuse
This case reminds the court not to pass mechanical orders. The answer is not to avoid relief altogether; it is to present clean facts, annexures, and a focused prayer.
F) When someone objects that the complaint may be false
This authority helps explain that the possibility of a false case is not itself a reason to refuse lawful process. The law has safeguards, including investigation and deterrent provisions such as Section 182 PPC.
G) When a civil suit is pending in a cheque dishonour or mixed dispute
These authorities help where the other side argues that pendency of a civil suit automatically makes the criminal process malicious. That is not always correct where a distinct criminal ingredient exists.
8) When courts dismiss 22-A petitions
Not every grievance becomes an FIR. Courts may dismiss 22-A where the narration does not disclose a cognizable offence, where the facts are vague, where the dispute is mainly administrative or civil, or where the petition lacks the most basic details.
Mst. Madiha Bano v. Senior Superintendent of Police Complaint Cell South Karachi, 2025 SCMR 1435 (Supreme Court), upheld dismissal of a 22-A petition where the courts below found that no cognizable offence was made out on the facts and left the petitioner to seek the proper remedy.
Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 2815, shows that failure to state the basics — date, time, place, and witnesses — can be enough to justify refusal.
Courts do not reject strong cases merely because they are inconvenient. They often reject weak files, vague narratives, and wrongly chosen remedies.
9) Civil disputes vs criminal offences
This is where many 22-A petitions collapse. Courts often refuse relief where a family, inheritance, property, or contractual dispute is being converted into a criminal case without clearly showing the criminal ingredient.
Mir Saifullah Mugheri v. Station House Officer, P.S. Hyderi, 2025 YLR 782 (Karachi High Court), reflects dismissal in a matter involving family relationship and inherited property where the dispute was being turned into criminal proceedings; the court suggested direct complaint before the competent court in those circumstances.
Salman Shaikh v. SHO PS Taluka Larkana, 2025 YLR 1831 (Karachi High Court), in a Section 489-F context, notes that mere pendency of a civil suit does not automatically render criminal proceedings malicious. Civil and criminal remedies may proceed independently where the criminal ingredient exists.
10) If the offence is non-cognizable
If the offence is non-cognizable, the information may still be recorded, but investigation generally requires a Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2) CrPC. In such cases, the practical route often becomes a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
Shahzad v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 PCrLJ 447 (Lahore High Court), discusses res judicata concerns in repeated 22-A attempts, but clarifies that such dismissal does not bar the independent statutory remedy of a private complaint.
Abdul Rasool v. S.H.O., P.S. City Jacobabad, 2024 YLR 1252 (Karachi High Court), upheld dismissal in the circumstances of that case while noting the availability of alternate remedies depending on facts.
11) What happens after an FIR is ordered
Registration of an FIR is not the end of the matter. It is only the beginning of investigation. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that after registration the investigating officer must proceed lawfully, collect evidence fairly, and protect fundamental rights.
Anayat Ullah v. Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 784 (Lahore High Court), emphasizes that mere registration of an FIR does not justify violation of fundamental rights under Articles 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution. The investigating officer must collect evidence, record versions, provide opportunity of hearing where required, and proceed strictly in accordance with law.
12) The second FIR issue
The issue of a second FIR is highly fact-sensitive. Courts do not always accept a blanket argument that a second FIR is impossible in every circumstance. Where a different version or angle is presented, the legal treatment may change depending on facts.
Raja Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Justice of Peace/District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarabad, 2023 PLD 108 (High Court AJK), upheld an order where a second FIR portraying a different angle was directed and reiterated that Section 154 is the mechanism that activates investigation.
13) Sample 22-A petition draft
This is the sample draft section for the main guide. For a more drafting-focused companion post with format, documents, and mistakes, also read: 22-A CrPC petition draft in Pakistan.
Copy the draft below, replace the GREEN placeholders with actual details, and attach annexures carefully.
Resident of [Complete Address].
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. District Police Officer (DPO), [City Name].
2. Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station [Station Name, City].
... RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER SECTION 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C. FOR REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE (FIR)
Respectfully Sheweth:
1. FACTS OF THE INCIDENT:
That the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. The brief facts are that on [Date] at about [Time], the accused persons namely [Accused Names] committed the offence by [clear criminal act] at [Place]. Witnesses include [Names]. Supporting documents/medical/CCTV etc. are annexed.
2. APPROACH TO SHO AND REFUSAL (Respondent No. 2):
That the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 2 (SHO) and submitted a written application for registration of FIR, but the SHO refused/delayed despite disclosure of cognizable offence. Copy is annexed as Annex-A.
3. APPROACH TO DPO/SP (Respondent No. 1):
That the Petitioner moved an application to Respondent No. 1 (DPO/SP Complaints) vide courier/diary receipt No. [Receipt/Diary No.] dated [Date]. Copy of application with courier receipt and proof of delivery is annexed as Annex-B and Annex-C. No action has been taken.
4. LEGAL GROUNDS:
That the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Under Section 154 Cr.P.C., registration is mandatory where a cognizable offence is disclosed. The SHO cannot block registration by pre-registration inquiry; registration must be followed by investigation according to law. Reliance is placed, inter alia, on:
(i) Seeta Ram v. State, 2025 SCMR 2028.
(ii) Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace, 2024 PCrLJ 351.
(iii) Tariq Mehmood v. ASJ/Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 86.
PRAYER:
It is prayed that Respondent No. 2 (SHO) may kindly be directed to register the FIR and proceed in accordance with law.
Any other relief deemed just and proper may also be granted.
Petitioner
________[Signature]________
Through Counsel:
[Advocate Name]
Advocate High Court
CERTIFICATE:
Certified that this is the first petition on this subject matter moved before this Honorable Court.
14) FAQs
Is FIR mandatory in every case?
FIR registration generally depends on whether the facts disclose a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court in Seeta Ram v. State (2025 SCMR 2028) explains the legal distinction and the resulting procedure under Sections 155 and 156 CrPC.
Can the SHO conduct inquiry before registering FIR?
Courts have disapproved using pre-registration inquiry to refuse registration in cognizable matters. See Arsalan Raza (2024 PCrLJ 351), Tariq Mehmood (2025 YLR 86), and Muhammad Azad (2020 YLRN 114).
Do I have to apply to SP/DPO before filing 22-A?
As a practical matter, yes. Courts often expect proof that you approached the SHO and then higher police hierarchy with due receipt or delivery proof before invoking 22-A. See Ahsan Khalid (2024 YLR 925).
Why do courts dismiss 22-A even where the complainant feels wronged?
Courts may dismiss 22-A where no cognizable offence is made out, where facts are weak or vague, or where the proper remedy lies elsewhere. See Mst. Madiha Bano (2025 SCMR 1435).
Can the Justice of Peace conduct a detailed inquiry like a trial before ordering FIR?
No. The Justice of Peace checks whether a cognizable case is made out from the narration and does not act as an investigating agency or prosecutor. See Syed Qamber Ali Shah (2024 SCMR 1123).
What if the dispute is civil, such as property, inheritance, or contract?
Courts frequently discourage conversion of civil disputes into criminal proceedings and may indicate alternate remedies. See Mir Saifullah Mugheri (2025 YLR 782). But if a distinct criminal ingredient exists, civil pendency alone may not bar the criminal side, as seen in Salman Shaikh (2025 YLR 1831).
If the offence is non-cognizable, what should I do?
Investigation generally requires a Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2), and a Section 200 CrPC private complaint is often the practical route. See Seeta Ram (2025 SCMR 2028) and Shahzad (2025 PCrLJ 447).
15) Case law index
- 2005 PLD 470 (LHC) — Khizer Hayat v. IGP (Punjab) — historical and global evolution of the role of Justice of Peace.
- 2025 SCMR 2028 (SC) — Seeta Ram v. State — cognizable/non-cognizable distinction; Sections 155/156/157 framework; mandatory entry in register.
- 2024 PCrLJ 351 (LHC) — Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace — no inquiry before registration; Section 157 and Police Rules cannot block Section 154.
- 2020 YLRN 114 (HC AJK) — Muhammad Azad v. Muhammad Saleem — inquiry before FIR not permissible.
- 2024 YLR 925 (KHC) — Ahsan Khalid v. SHO — maintainability requires approach to SHO and police hierarchy with proof.
- 2025 YLR 875 (KHC) — Mst. Farhiha Ahmaree v. SHO — purpose of Section 22-A(6); quasi-judicial nature; discretion and notice; deterrence against false FIR.
- 2024 SCMR 985 (SC) — Munawar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Mallano — misuse control; no mechanical orders.
- 2024 SCMR 1123 (SC) — Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh — Justice of Peace is not investigator or prosecutor; only checks whether a cognizable case is made out.
- 2025 YLR 86 (LHC) — Tariq Mehmood v. ASJ/Justice of Peace — Section 154 mandate; no truth-testing at registration stage.
- 2025 YLR 1831 (KHC) — Salman Shaikh v. SHO — Section 489-F context; civil pendency is not an automatic bar; civil and criminal can proceed independently.
- 2025 YLR 784 (LHC) — Anayat Ullah v. ASJ/Justice of Peace — fair investigation; fundamental rights after registration.
- 2025 PCrLJ 447 (LHC) — Shahzad v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace — repeated 22-A and res judicata concerns; Section 200 complaint remains available.
- 2025 YLR 2815 (LHC) — Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace — refusal justified where basic particulars such as date, time, place, and witnesses are missing.
- 2025 YLR 782 (KHC) — Mir Saifullah Mugheri v. SHO — civil conversion concern; direct complaint suggested in the circumstances.
- 2024 YLR 1252 (KHC) — Abdul Rasool v. SHO — dismissal upheld in the circumstances; alternate remedies depending on facts.
- 2025 SCMR 1435 (SC) — Mst. Madiha Bano v. SSP Complaint Cell South Karachi — dismissal upheld where no cognizable offence was found; liberty to pursue proper remedy.
- 2023 PLD 108 (HC AJK) — Raja Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Justice of Peace/D&SJ Muzaffarabad — second FIR context; Section 154 activates investigation.
This article is for educational guidance and general information. The proper remedy depends on facts, the nature of the alleged offence, and local court practice. Consult a qualified lawyer before finalizing litigation strategy or draft.