Home
Criminal Law

22-A CrPC in Pakistan: How to Get FIR Registered When Police Refuse

Justice of Peace (22-A CrPC) Pakistan: FIR Registration Procedure

Step-by-step, court-friendly roadmap when the SHO refuses to register your FIR — with practical drafting tips, real-world application of case law, a ready 22-A petition draft, and hidden FAQ schema.

22-A CrPC 22-B CrPC Section 154 CrPC Cognizable vs Non-Cognizable Pakistan Case Law
Quick map (memorise this):
  • Step 1: Decide if the facts disclose a cognizable offence (Sections 2(f), 2(n), 154, 155, 156 CrPC).
  • Step 2: Create proof: SHO application → SP/DPO application → courier/receipt + delivery proof.
  • Step 3: File 22-A/22-B CrPC before the Sessions Judge (Ex-Officio Justice of Peace).
  • Step 4: If matter is non-cognizable or purely civil, use the correct remedy (often Section 200 CrPC private complaint / civil suit).
22-A CrPC in Pakistan: Justice of Peace guide to get your FIR registered when police refuse
22-A CrPC (Justice of Peace): procedure to get FIR registered when the SHO refuses.

1) Why police refuse to register FIR (and what that really means)

When an incident happens and the SHO refuses to register an FIR, the refusal usually comes as a “civil matter” label, a delay tactic, or an “inquiry first” excuse. Your job is to convert the complaint into a clean, provable record and then move through the legal ladder properly.

Common excuses (and your best response):
  • “Civil dispute” → ask: is there force/fraud/threat/hurt/theft/kidnapping, or only property/title/accounting?
  • “Inquiry first” → insist on written receiving and move hierarchy; courts generally dislike pre-registration truth-testing.
  • “Bring witnesses” → fine, but still submit a written complaint and keep copies.
  • “We’ll see” → don’t wait endlessly; follow the procedural ladder and then 22-A.

2) Justice of Peace (22-A/22-B): why this forum exists

The Justice of Peace exists to keep policing accountable at district level—especially where citizens are refused registration of reports or face police excess. It is meant to be accessible and practical, not ceremonial.

Historical + institutional perspective:

Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore, 2005 PLD 470 (Lahore High Court) surveys the historical and global evolution of the Justice of Peace and how its role developed in different systems.

Doorstep forum + nature of proceedings:

Mst. Farhiha Ahmaree v. Station House Officer, 2025 YLR 875 (Karachi High Court) explains that 22-A(6) creates a forum at the doorstep of the people; proceedings are generally quasi-judicial and require discretion after hearing.

3) Cognizable vs non-cognizable: what changes legally

This is the “switch” that changes everything. If the offence is cognizable, police can investigate without a Magistrate’s order. If it is non-cognizable, police cannot investigate without a Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2).

Supreme Court’s framework (definitions + consequences):

Seeta Ram v. State, 2025 SCMR 2028 (Supreme Court) explains cognizable vs non-cognizable definitions (Ss. 2(f), 2(n)) and the practical divide: cognizable → investigation under S.156 without Magistrate order; non-cognizable → investigation barred unless Magistrate orders under S.155(2). It also emphasizes the duty to enter information in the prescribed register.

It follows that In case of a cognizable offence, section 156, Cr.P.C. empowers any police officer in charge of a police station to investigate without order of a Magistrate, while section 155, Cr.P.C. places a clog on the power of police officer, who cannot investigate without a specific order of Magistrate competent in such regard as has been mandated under section 155(2), Cr.P.C.

The expression "shall" in both sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C., makes it a mandatory statutory obligation of incharge of a Police Station to enter such information in the relevant prescribed book or register FIR.

If information relates to the commission of a cognizable offence given orally or in writing, then incharge of the police station has no option except to enter it in the book prescribed for such purpose.

In case of a non-cognizable offence, it is a statutory duty to enter the information in the relevant prescribed book but investigation cannot be commenced or carried out without obtaining a specific order from a Magistrate competent in this regard.

Real-world tip:

In your complaint, write one line clearly:
“This information discloses a cognizable offence; registration under Section 154 is mandatory; investigation can follow under Section 156.”
If non-cognizable:
“Information must be entered; investigation requires Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2).”

4) “No inquiry before FIR”: the rule and why it matters

Many SHOs try to avoid FIR registration by starting “verification/inquiry” first. Courts repeatedly caution that pre-registration truth-testing should not be used to block Section 154 where a cognizable offence is disclosed. In simple words: register first, investigate after.

Lahore High Court: S.157 / Police Rules cannot block S.154:

Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace, 2024 PCrLJ 351 (Lahore High Court) holds that Section 157 CrPC read with Rule 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934 cannot be employed before registration under Section 154. If information discloses a cognizable offence, SHO cannot test credibility to refuse registration; the proper course is registration then investigation.

Supporting authority: no “truth check” at registration stage:

Tariq Mehmood v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 86 (Lahore High Court) reiterates that SHO cannot determine veracity at the registration stage; if cognizable offence appears, he must register and then investigate.

AJK High Court warning:

Muhammad Azad v. Muhammad Saleem, 2020 YLRN 114 (High Court AJK) observes that inquiry before registration is not permissible and can make the whole story doubtful.

Winning line for petitions:

“The SHO refused FIR and instead started pre-registration inquiry, which courts disapprove as a method to block Section 154 in cognizable matters (2024 PCrLJ 351; 2025 YLR 86; 2020 YLRN 114).”

5) Mandatory administrative route (SHO → SP/DPO)

Courts often expect proof that you approached the police hierarchy before filing 22-A. This is one of the most common reasons weak petitions get dismissed instantly.

Maintainability depends on proof:

Ahsan Khalid v. Station House Officer, P.S. Sachal Malir, 2024 YLR 925 (Karachi High Court) indicates the court should satisfy that the applicant approached SHO (proper diary/receiving) and then higher hierarchy under due receipt, but with no effect.

Do this exactly (minimum safe checklist)

  1. SHO application: written complaint, keep copy, try to get diary/receiving stamp.
  2. SP/DPO application: send the same complaint to SP/DPO or SP Complaints.
  3. Courier proof: keep courier receipt + delivery tracking/print.

6) Filing 22-A petition: what the court checks

A 22-A petition is not meant for long stories. It is meant for a clean request backed by annexures. Courts typically check:

  1. Is a cognizable offence made out from the narration?
  2. Did you approach SHO and SP/DPO with proof?
  3. Is it criminal in nature or a civil dispute dressed as criminal?
  4. Are core details present (date/time/place/witnesses/injury/loss/evidence)?
Why many petitions fail (missing basics):

Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 2815 (Lahore High Court) shows that where key details (date/time/place/witnesses) are missing, the Justice of Peace may refuse direction.

7) How to use case law in real life (arguments that work)

Case law helps when you use it as a tool, not a “list.” Here’s how lawyers use these citations in actual 22-A practice:

A) “Is it cognizable or not?” (Start here)

Use: Seeta Ram v. State, 2025 SCMR 2028

Use it when: police say “this is non-cognizable” or confuse procedure.
What you argue: cognizable → S.156 investigation without Magistrate order; non-cognizable → S.155(2) Magistrate order needed.
Real-world result: you frame correct relief and prevent SHO from hiding behind “procedure.”

B) “No inquiry before FIR” (Stop delay tactics)

Use: Arsalan Raza 2024 PCrLJ 351 + Tariq Mehmood 2025 YLR 86 + Muhammad Azad 2020 YLRN 114

Use it when: SHO says “we’re verifying first.”
What you argue: registration duty comes first if cognizable is disclosed; investigation comes after.
Real-world result: court sees “refusal” clearly and is more comfortable directing registration.

C) “I followed the hierarchy” (Maintainability & credibility)

Use: Ahsan Khalid, 2024 YLR 925

Use it when: judge asks “did you approach SP/DPO?”
Real-world result: you show annexures (SHO application + SP/DPO application + courier proof) and avoid quick dismissal.

D) “Justice of Peace is not an investigating agency” (Scope boundary)

Use: Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh, 2024 SCMR 1123

Use it when: the other side demands a mini-trial before FIR.
Real-world result: you keep the hearing focused on “cognizable offence disclosed?” not “who is right?”

E) “No mechanical orders / misuse control”

Use: Munawar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Mallano, 2024 SCMR 985

Use it when: court is cautious about misuse.
Real-world result: you respond with facts + annexures + clarity so the court can grant relief without fear of “mechanical” direction.

F) “Quasi-judicial hearing + deterrence for false FIR”

Use: Mst. Farhiha Ahmaree, 2025 YLR 875

Use it when: SHO refuses to even record statement or someone shouts “false case!”
Real-world result: you argue that refusal is not the filter; the law has deterrence (e.g., Section 182 PPC) and investigation for truth.

G) 489-F cheque dishonour + civil suit pendency

Use: Tariq Mehmood 2025 YLR 86 + Salman Shaikh 2025 YLR 1831

Use it when: the accused says “civil suit is pending, so criminal is malicious.”
Real-world result: you show courts have upheld 22-A directions for 489-F and stated civil and criminal can proceed independently where criminal ingredient exists.

8) When courts dismiss 22-A (no cognizable offence / weak facts)

Not every grievance becomes an FIR. Courts dismiss 22-A when the narration does not disclose a cognizable offence, or when the complaint is essentially about reputation, humiliation, academic/administrative disputes, vague allegations, or missing core facts.

Supreme Court: no cognizable offence → 22-A dismissal upheld:

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 courts below found no cognizable offence on the facts and left the petitioner to avail proper remedy.

Lahore High Court: weak facts / missing details can sink the petition:

Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 2815 shows that failure to mention basics (date/time/place/witnesses) can justify refusal of direction.

Real-world takeaway:

If your case is real, make it “court-ready”: write precise facts, attach proof, and avoid emotional language. Courts don’t reject strong cases—they reject weak files.

9) Civil dispute vs criminal offence (where petitions collapse)

Courts frequently dismiss 22-A where a civil dispute is being converted into a criminal case—especially in family property and inheritance fights.

Civil conversion warning:

Mir Saifullah Mugheri v. Station House Officer, P.S. Hyderi, 2025 YLR 782 (Karachi High Court) reflects dismissal where inter se family relation and inherited property dispute was being converted into criminal proceedings; court suggested direct complaint before competent court in those circumstances.

But civil suit pending does not always kill criminal side:

Salman Shaikh v. SHO PS Taluka Larkana, 2025 YLR 1831 (Karachi High Court) (489-F context) notes that mere pendency of a civil suit does not automatically render criminal proceedings malicious; both may proceed independently if criminal ingredient exists.

10) If offence is non-cognizable: Section 200 complaint (correct route)

If the offence is non-cognizable, information may still be entered, but investigation generally requires a Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2). Practically, the most effective route often becomes a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

Res judicata point + Section 200 remains open:

Shahzad v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, 2025 PCrLJ 447 (Lahore High Court) discusses res judicata in repeated 22-A attempts, but clarifies it does not bar the independent statutory remedy of private complaint.

Dismissal doesn’t mean “no remedy”:

Abdul Rasool v. S.H.O., P.S. City Jacobabad, 2024 YLR 1252 (Karachi High Court) upheld dismissal in circumstances and noted alternate remedies depending on facts.

11) After FIR order: investigation + rights of accused

Even after an FIR is ordered, registration is only the start. Courts remind police to protect fundamental rights and keep the investigation evidence-based and lawful.

Fundamental rights + fair investigation:

Anayat Ullah v. Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, 2025 YLR 784 (Lahore High Court) emphasizes that mere registration does not justify curtailing fundamental rights under Articles 9, 10 and 10-A; IO should collect evidence, record versions, provide opportunity of hearing, and proceed strictly according to law.

12) Second FIR issue (limited context)

Sometimes a second FIR is sought portraying a different angle. Courts have treated Section 154 as a mechanism to activate investigation and, depending on facts, have not accepted blanket arguments that a second FIR is always impermissible.

Second FIR context (AJK):

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 activates investigation.

13) Sample Draft: 22-A Petition for Registration of FIR

Copy the draft below, replace GREEN text with your details, and attach annexures properly.

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE / EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, [CITY NAME]
Mr./Ms. [Applicant Name] s/o, d/o, w/o [Father/Husband Name]
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 cognizable offence is disclosed. The SHO cannot block registration by pre-registration inquiry; registration is followed by investigation under 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 explains the legal divide and procedure (Seeta Ram v. State, 2025 SCMR 2028).

Can the SHO conduct inquiry before registering FIR?

Courts have disapproved using pre-registration inquiry to refuse registration in cognizable matters (Arsalan Raza, 2024 PCrLJ 351; Tariq Mehmood, 2025 YLR 86; Muhammad Azad, 2020 YLRN 114).

Do I have to apply to SP/DPO before filing 22-A?

Practically yes; courts often expect proof of approach to SHO and higher hierarchy before 22-A (Ahsan Khalid, 2024 YLR 925).

Why do courts sometimes dismiss 22-A even if I feel wronged?

If no cognizable offence is made out, or the matter is essentially administrative/civil, courts may dismiss and leave you to proper remedy (Mst. Madiha Bano, 2025 SCMR 1435).

Can the Justice of Peace conduct a full investigation before ordering FIR?

No; the Justice of Peace checks whether a cognizable case is made out and should not act as an investigating agency (Syed Qamber Ali Shah, 2024 SCMR 1123).

What if the dispute is civil (property/inheritance/contract)?

Courts discourage criminal conversion of civil disputes and may point to alternate remedies (Mir Saifullah Mugheri, 2025 YLR 782). However, if a distinct criminal ingredient exists (e.g., 489-F), civil pendency alone may not bar criminal proceedings (Salman Shaikh, 2025 YLR 1831).

If offence is non-cognizable, what should I do?

Investigation generally requires Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2), and a Section 200 private complaint is often the practical route (Seeta Ram, 2025 SCMR 2028; Shahzad, 2025 PCrLJ 447).

15) Case Law Index (ALL provided cases — not skipped)

  • 2005 PLD 470 (LHC) — Khizer Hayat v. IGP (Punjab) — historical/global evolution and role of Justice of Peace.
  • 2025 SCMR 2028 (SC) — Seeta Ram v. State — cognizable/non-cognizable definitions; Ss.155/156/157 framework; mandatory entry in register.
  • 2024 PCrLJ 351 (LHC) — Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace — no inquiry before registration; S.157/Police Rules cannot block S.154.
  • 2020 YLRN 114 (HC AJK) — Muhammad Azad v. Muhammad Saleem — inquiry before FIR not permissible; affects credibility.
  • 2024 YLR 925 (KHC) — Ahsan Khalid v. SHO — maintainability: approach SHO + hierarchy with proof before 22-A/22-B.
  • 2025 YLR 875 (KHC) — Mst. Farhiha Ahmaree v. SHO — purpose of 22-A(6); quasi-judicial nature; discretion/notice; deterrence vs false FIR (S.182 PPC).
  • 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 — scope of Justice of Peace; not investigator/prosecutor; only checks cognizable case.
  • 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 — 489-F; civil pendency not automatic bar; civil & criminal can proceed independently.
  • 2025 YLR 784 (LHC) — Anayat Ullah v. ASJ/Justice of Peace — FIR registration vs fundamental rights; fair investigation and hearing.
  • 2025 PCrLJ 447 (LHC) — Shahzad v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace — res judicata in repeated 22-A; Section 200 private complaint remains open.
  • 2025 YLR 2815 (LHC) — Jamshed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace — refusal justified where basics (date/time/place/witnesses) missing.
  • 2025 YLR 782 (KHC) — Mir Saifullah Mugheri v. SHO — civil conversion concern; direct complaint suggested in circumstances.
  • 2024 YLR 1252 (KHC) — Abdul Rasool v. SHO — dismissal upheld in circumstances; alternate remedies depending on facts.
  • 2025 SCMR 1435 (SC) — Mst. Madiha Bano v. SSP Complaint Cell South Karachi — 22-A dismissal upheld where no cognizable offence found; liberty to 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.
Disclaimer:

This article is for educational guidance and general information. Procedure varies by facts and local practice. Consult a qualified lawyer to finalize drafting and strategy.

Read also:
The author is a law graduate with over seven years of legal experience. Through The Law Studies, the author writes on diverse legal topics, combining practical knowledge with comparative insights from Pakistan, the UK, the US, and other common law jurisdictions.