YLR 2013

2013 PLP 1146 (YLR)

Mst. SAKINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.6086 of 2012, decided on 18th October, 2012.
Honorable Judges
Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 PLP 1146 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J
Parties Mst. SAKINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1146 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1146 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1146 (YLR) (Mst. SAKINA BIBI — Petitioner Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mian Shahzad Siraj for Petitioner.
  • Wali Muhammad Khan, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 22-A & 22-B

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition--Application before Justice of Peace based on mala fide

Complainant (petitioner) had filed an application under Ss.22-A and 22-B, Cr. P. C before Justice of Peace alleging that police officials conducted a raid at her house, misbehaved with the ladies of the house and took away different articles including animals

Police report disclosed that complainant had filed application before Justice of Peace just to avoid the arrest of her son, who was wanted in a dacoity case

Justice of Peace, without looking into the facts available on record, directed the District Police Officer (DPO) to take appropriate action against the delinquent police officers

Validity

Application of the complainant before the Justice of Peace appeared to be ridiculous as it was beyond imagination that a police party while conducting raid could be able to take away (numerous) household articles and animals

Application filed by complainant seemed to be based on mala fide and it appeared that she wanted to restrain the police officials from arresting her son, who was required in a dacoity case

Justice of Peace did not examine the application and gave directions to District Police Officer (DPO) in a mechanical manner

Order passed by Justice of Peace was declared to be of no legal effect and set aside, and application filed by complainant under Ss. 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.0 was dismissed

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

In the application filed by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before learned Ex-Officio Justice the allegations were levelled against the Police officials for conducting raid at her house and not only Police contingency misbehaved with the ladies of the house but also took away different articles including animals. A report was requisitioned by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kamalia from the local Police, which reported that the application filed against the Police Officials by the petitioner just to avoid the arrest of her son Muhammad Nawaz, who was required in case F.I.R No.20 of 2012 registered under section 395 P.P.C. Learned Ex-officio of Peace without looking into the facts available on the record referred the matter to the District Police Officer, Toba Tex Singh for taking appropriate action against the delinquents. Through instant constitutional petition the petitioner prayed for a direction to respondent No.1/DPO for lodging the F.I.R. against the Police officials.

2. In view of the prayer of the petitioner, the application filed by the petitioner before the leaned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and order passed thereon have been examined, which disclose that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has exercised its jurisdiction in a mechanical manner and did not examine the contents of the application placed before it for issuing direction. The application of the petitioner appears to be very ridiculous as it contains details of animals like pregnant buffalo, its calf, two young buffalo with one calf, two goats and one she-donkey, which allegedly were taken away by the Police party when a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner. She has further provided details of household articles, which include two double bed blanket, bed sheets, pillows and two suits. It is beyond the imagination that the Police party while conducting raid at the house of the petitioner could be able to take away all these articles and animals with it, so the application filed by the petitioner appears to be based upon mala fide of the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner just want to restrain the Police officials from arresting her son Muhammad Nawaz, who was required in a dacoity case. It is very sorry state of affair that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace did not examine the application and in a mechanical manner directed the DPO to take action against the Police officials. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is required to apply its legal mind to the facts and circumstances of the case placed before it to see whether the complaint made does not suffer from any mala fide or lacking the material for reaching at conclusion that the commission of cognizable offence is made out. The order so passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is totally unwarranted in law and is liable to be set aside.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dated 11-2-2012 is declared of no legal effect and is set aside E accordingly, resulting into dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. MWA/S-116/L Petition dismissed.