Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act 2021 — No FIR Registration: A Legal Analysis in the Light of Schedule II, Cr.P.C. 1898

Case: Syed Rizwan Haider v. A.S.J. etc.
Citation: 2025 LHC 4030
Date: 27 May 2025
Judge: Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq

Introduction

On 27 May 2025, the Lahore High Court delivered a significant ruling in Syed Rizwan Haider v. A.S.J. etc. (WP-1142-25, 2025 LHC 4030), interpreting Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021.

The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act cannot commence through an FIR (First Information Report). Instead, such offences fall within the category of non-cognizable offences, requiring a different procedural route under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.).

This decision closes a long-standing interpretive gap in Schedule II of the Cr.P.C., where offences punishable with exactly three years’ imprisonment had no express classification.

The Core Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was:

• Can proceedings under Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act be initiated through an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.?

• If not, what is the proper legal mechanism to set the process in motion?

• What is the nature of the offence — cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, compoundable or non-compoundable, and which court is competent to try it?

Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021 — The Offence

Section 22 criminalises two forms of misconduct:

1. False investigation by public servants — where an officer, with mala fide intent or gross negligence, causes a distorted or incorrect outcome in investigations under the Act.

2. False complaint or information — where any person knowingly provides false information relating to a scheduled offence under the Act, causing wrongful exercise of legal authority.

Punishment: “Imprisonment which may extend to three years and with fine.”

Notably, the provision does not specify whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable.

Schedule II of the Cr.P.C. 1898 — The Missing Piece

Schedule II provides general rules for offences under “other laws” (non-PPC statutes):

• Punishable with death, life imprisonment, or > 7 years → Cognizable; triable by Sessions Court.

• More than 3 years but < 7 years → Cognizable; triable by Sessions or Magistrate First Class.

• More than 1 year but < 3 years → Non-cognizable; triable by Magistrate First Class.

• Less than 1 year → Non-cognizable.

The problem: No express rule for offences punishable with exactly three years.

The Court resolved this ambiguity: unless the statute itself declares the offence to be cognizable, an offence carrying exactly three years’ punishment defaults to non-cognizable and bailable.

Cr.P.C. Framework Applied

• Section 154 Cr.P.C. → FIR applies only to cognizable offences.

• Section 155 Cr.P.C. → For non-cognizable offences, the police must make a diary entry and refer the complaint to a Magistrate.

• Section 190 Cr.P.C. → Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence on such complaint.

• Section 193 Cr.P.C. → Sessions Court has no original jurisdiction unless the case is transferred from a Magistrate.

Court’s Findings

The Lahore High Court held:

• Section 22 offences are non-cognizable (since punishment is up to three years, and the statute does not state otherwise).

• FIR cannot be registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

• The correct procedure is through Section 155 Cr.P.C. — diary entry by police, referral to Magistrate, and Magistrate’s cognizance under Section 190.

• Bailability: Default position is bailable.

• Compoundability: Since neither Cr.P.C. Section 345 nor the Anti-Rape Act permit compounding, the offence remains non-compoundable.

• Trial forum: Magistrate of First Class.

Practical Implications

1. No FIR under Section 22: Lawyers and complainants must avoid filing direct FIRs; instead, they must move before a Magistrate.

2. Safeguard against misuse: This prevents frivolous or retaliatory FIRs under Section 22, protecting public servants and individuals from abuse of process.

3. Judicial clarity on “three-year offences”: The ruling establishes a general principle: where punishment is exactly three years and the statute is silent, the offence is non-cognizable and bailable.

4. Non-compoundability: Parties cannot privately settle or withdraw such matters unless legislative amendments provide otherwise.

Conclusion

The judgment in Syed Rizwan Haider v. A.S.J. (2025 LHC 4030) provides a landmark clarification in Pakistan’s criminal law framework. By holding that Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021 cannot be invoked through FIR, the Court ensures that procedural safeguards under the Cr.P.C. are strictly observed.

This ruling not only protects individuals against misuse of criminal law but also provides a judicially settled interpretation of Schedule II’s silence on “three-year” offences — a precedent likely to influence future cases under other special statutes.

🔖 Key Principle:
An offence under Section 22 of the Anti-Rape Act 2021 is non-cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable. Proceedings must begin through a Magistrate under Section 155/190 Cr.P.C., not through an FIR under Section 154.