2025 PLP 2606 (YLR)

Ali Baig, C.J.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned order/judgment dated 06-12-2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Ex- Officio Justice of Peace Gilgit, whereby the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the respondent No.2.

2. Briefly the facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the present petitioner had filed an application before the respondent No.1 stating therein that the present respondent No.1 and six others have demolished the compound wall of the present petitioner and entered unlawfully into the lands of present petitioner situated at Jutial Gilgit and took away the articles owned by the petitioner i.e. electric generator, 51 bags of cement and 5 numbers of shovels from the place of occurrence.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.1 has refused to register FIR against the respondent No.2. Accordingly the petitioner had filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge / Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit against the present respondents seeking direction of justice of Peace for lodging of FIR against the respondent No.2. The learned justice of Peace Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the petition filed under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C vide the judgment/ order dated 06-12-2024.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/ order passed by the Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit the petitioner has preferred the instant petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on record of the case, hence, the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit has misconceived the law and facts and has passed the impugned order/ judgment on the basis of conjecture and suppositions as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.1/SHO is Government official and he is bound to lodge FIR against the respondent No.2 under law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit deliberately has ignored this legal position of the case as such impugned order/ judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.2 has committed a cognizable offence and respondent No.1 is duty bound to register FIR against the respondent No.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the instant petition may be accepted and judgment/ order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/ Ex- officio Justice of Peace Gilgit may be set aside and direction may be issued to the respondent No. 1 to lodge the FIR against the respondents No. 2 in the interest of Justice.

6. On the other hand, the learned DAG appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that if the respondent No.2 has committed any cognizable offence, he has no objection in lodging of FIR against him.

7. Respondent No.2 as well as his counsel were not in attendance during course of arguments, therefore, no any arguments were heard on behalf of respondent No.2. However, counsel of the respondent No.2 appeared before this court on 13-06-2025 and advanced arguments by submitting some case laws. 2019 MLD 1066. PLD 2020 553 Sindh High Court.

8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record of the case with their able assistance.

9. Prior to filing of application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C before Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit, the petitioner had submitted an application before SHO P.S Jutial Gilgit on 29-11-2024 regarding registration of FIR against the present respondent No.2 alleging therein that the respondent No.2 and his co-accused have stolen one Generator worth of Rs. 50,000/-, 51 bags cements worth of Rs. 94350 and some other items from the compound of the house of the petitioner by demolishing boundary wall. In the aforesaid application the petitioner has stated that he has no any dispute with respondent No.2, whereas there was civil dispute between the parties and present respondent No.2 has filed a civil suit against the petitioner regarding suit property as such the petitioner has concealed this important fact in his applications submitted before the police as well as before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit, hence, the petitioner has not approached the Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit with clean hands.

10. Admittedly the respondent No.2 has filed a civil suit against the present petitioner in the court of Senior Civil Judge Gilgit in respect of disputed property.

11. The learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit has examined the complaint of the present petitioner in order to determine as to whether it did or did not constitute a cognizable offence. After examining the complaint and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace/District and Sessions Judge Gilgit rightly came to conclusion that there was a bona fide civil dispute between the parties pending adjudication before the civil court at Gilgit.

12. From perusal of record it transpires that the petitioner wanted to prosecute the present respondent No.2 on account of a pure civil dispute pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit. No doubt an Ex-officio Justice of Peace cannot go into veracity of the information /complaint but at the same time it is permissible for him to examine the complaint.

13. I am therefore, of the opinion that the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit has not violated any provisions of law by dismissing application of the present petitioner filed under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the present respondent No.2 has also lodged FIR against the present petitioner vide FIR No.7/2025 under sections 506, 337 F(B), 427/34 P.P.C at Police Station Jutial Gilgit. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not pointed out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace Gilgit warranting interfere of this Court by involving its inherent power under section 561-A Cr.P.C.

15. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition along with Cr. Misc No. 380/2024 being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. File. JK/16/GB Petition dismissed.