2012 PLP 889 (MLD)
MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 889 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J |
| Parties | MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 889 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 889 (MLD)?
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: 2012 PLP 889 (MLD) (MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haseeb Bin Yousaf for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 22-B
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Constitution of Pakistan, Art 199
Constitutional petition
Registration of F.I.R.
Petitioner had moved application before senior police official for taking action against respondents, which was still pending
Respondent, during pendency of petitioner's application, obtained direction for registration of case against petitioner by submitting application under Ss. 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C before Justice of Peace
Petitioner had issued cheques in favour of respondent which were dishonored and Justice of Peace had issued direction for registration of case on basis of dishonored cheques
If F.I.R. was registered against petitioner, he could use the application pending before senior police official as his defence
Interference by High Court in the order passed by the Justice of Peace, therefore, would amount to quashing the F.I.R.
Facts provided by petitioner required detailed inquiry which exercise could not be undertaken through the present constitutional petition
Factual controversy between the parties was to be settled by the Investigating officer
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Additional Advocate-General Punjab on court's call.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.
Writ Petitions Nos.3784 of 2012 and 3785 of 2012, are being decided by this single order due to commonality of the impugned order.
2. The petitioner Maqsood Ahmed, feeling aggrieved by an order dated 24-12-2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore has challenged its legality through the instant Constitutional petitions on the ground that the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore is illegal as the application of the petitioner moved to the Superintendent of Police for taking action against Mannan Ahmad and Muhammad Sarwar is still pending and direction obtained by the respondents for registration of case against the petitioner is counterblast to his application. He further prayed that till the conclusion of the inquiry initiated by the said Superintendent of Police, the operation of the impugned order be suspended.
3. The perusal of the application filed by Mannan Ahmad under section 22-A/B Cr.P.C. discloses that the present petitioner had issued cheques in his favour which were dishonoured and the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had issued direction for the registration of case on the basis of dishonoured cheques.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been appreciated and it is found that the matter pending before the Superintendent of Police could be the defence of the petitioner which he may take in case F.I.R. is registered against him. The interference by this court in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore would amount to quash the F.I.R. Further the facts narrated by the petitioner require detailed inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken through the instant Constitutional petition. It is the job of the Investigating Officer to settle the factual controversy between the parties by investigating the case where the petitioner shall be at liberty to place all his documents in defence for showing his innocence in the matter.
5. In the circumstances, the petitions having no merits are dismissed in limine. M.W.A./M-64/L Petitions dismissed.