2005 P Cr (PLP)

This order will dispose of Writ Petition No.3774 of 2005 seeking registration of case against respondents Nos.5 to 7.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is seeking direction for registration of case against respondents Nos.5 to 7 on the ground that on 12-5-2005 he purchased 11 bags wheat and was proceeding to his house when the respondents armed with deadly weapons came there and forcibly snatched wheat on the gun point and decamped therefrom.

3. It is contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Kabirwala, District Khanewal dismissed the application for registration of case against the accused persons in routine matter without applying its judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further argued that under section 22-A of Cr.P.C. it is within the powers of Justice of Peace to issue direction to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law. It was not within the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to call for report from the police as well as from the accused persons. It is further stated that it is mandatory for the police to record F.I.R. under section 154, Cr.P.C. as a. complaint is lodged with the police. He further contended that respondents Nos.5 to 7 have committed cognizable offence. F.I.R. is to be lodged to set the police machinery in motion to take action against the accused persons.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order dated 20-6-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala. The perusal of the order reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge had sought comments from S.H.O. who in response to the direction of the Court submitted comments stating therein that no occurrence has taken place as per his investigation. Since, there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents Nos.5 to 7 regarding payment of an amount ofRs.15,000 and the respondents in lieu of that Rs.15,000 had given wheat in exchange to the accused, as such no offence has been committed by the accused. Since, the matter pertains to payment of certain amounts between the parties which does not fall within the purview of the police. In this view of the matter, no case was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to give any explanation as to whether an amount of Rs.15,000 was due from the petitioner to respondents Nos.5 to 7 or not. On Court query, he simply replies that it is a civil dispute and the respondents had no right or authority to recover the amount due in the manner by snatching the wheat forcibly from the petitioner which constitutes a criminal offence.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on the file. I am of the confirmed view that if the 'petitioner had evidence against the respondents for the commission of criminal offence, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a private complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, instead of running after the police, who are not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner and if at all they are forced to register a case it is going to be exercised in futility as it still face the same fate in the dismissal of the same as the police authorities are not convinced that any criminal offence had taken place. It would be in the interest of justice and for the benefit of the petitioner to lodge a private complaint for the redress of his grievance and it is only a Court of competent jurisdiction, who after recording the convincing evidence of the petitioner issue summons against the accused persons and if found then' guilty can punish them in accordance.with law. In this view of the matter, this writ petition having no force is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1161/L Petition dismissed.