2017 P Cr (PLP)
SOHAIL AHMED and another — Petitioners Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SOHAIL AHMED and another — Petitioners Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (SOHAIL AHMED and another — Petitioners Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Jameel Akhtar for Petitioners.
- Saqib Hanif Raja for Respondents.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly admitted the receipt of earnest amount and also signified his willingness to return the same, however, argues that in the backdrop of stated facts, the Justice of Peace had no occasion to issue the impugned direction, apparently an innocuous order, however, preparatory to registration of a criminal case in a dispute essentially justiciable in civil jurisdiction. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 has defended the impugned order on the ground that a statutory duty is cast upon the Station House Officer to register a criminal case on receipt of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22-A
Direction of Justice of Peace to register criminal case in a civil transaction
Criminal as well as civil pursuits were to follow side by side
Where mischief of a penal provision was found indissolubly annexed with a cause of action, though distinctly justifiable in civil jurisdiction; the distinction, no doubt subtle, nonetheless, was to be carefully observed for the reason that domains of justice in civil and criminal jurisdiction were clearly demarcated, therefore, inter se intrusion must be avoided
Application of punitive laws must be based upon strict construction and unless an act or omission clearly and independently fell within the defined ambit of a penal provision, its prosecution in criminal dispensation would tantamount to abuse of process of law.
S. 22-A
Direction of Justice of Peace to register criminal case in a civil transaction
Every moral wrong was not a crime nor every broken promise or betrayal justifiable in criminal dispensation.
S. 22-A
Direction of Justice of Peace to register criminal case in a civil transaction
Mere absence of bar for simultaneous pursuits, in itself, was no justification for recourse in criminal jurisdiction in every run of the mill case.
S. 22-A
Direction of Justice of Peace to register criminal case in civil transaction
In the present case, neither the transaction of plot nor its location was denied
Pendency of civil suits inter se the parties was a common ground as well
Issue merely related to the conversion of character of plot into a commercial unit and, if at all, an indication was mischievously given to the petitioner so as to induce him to clinch the deal, a host of remedies was available under the civil law
Losses incurred by a claimant on account of alleged default or misrepresentation could be verified, assessed and determined through civil courts
Direction of Justice of Peace to register a criminal case was not in consonance of law.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Impugned herein is order dated 11-4-2016 whereby a Justice of Peace at Rawalpindi directed Station House Officer Police Station Airport Rawalpindi to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. It is alleged that Sohail Ahmad and Asif Mehmood petitioners induced Nisar Ahmad respondent to transact sale of a shop measuring 6-Marlas situating within the limits of village Kotha Kalan for a consideration of Rs.14,199,000/- of which a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was received by them as earnest amount, however, the proposed site turned out as a non-commercial piece of land. The transaction is not denied by the petitioners nor receipt of amount mentioned above, albeit with a claim that the land, given its location, had commercial value and that respondent No.3 was under a contractual obligation as per agreement to sell, to clear the remainder of the consideration and in the event of default, became liable to return the earnest money in accordance with the penalty clause mentioned therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly admitted the receipt of earnest amount and also signified his willingness to return the same, however, argues that in the backdrop of stated facts, the Justice of Peace had no occasion to issue the impugned direction, apparently an innocuous order, however, preparatory to registration of a criminal case in a dispute essentially justiciable in civil jurisdiction. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 has defended the impugned order on the ground that a statutory duty is cast upon the Station House Officer to register a criminal case on receipt of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It is by now well settled that criminal as well as civil pursuits may be followed side by side, however, in cases where mischief of a penal provision is found indissolubly annexed with a cause of action, though distinctly justiciable in civil jurisdiction; the distinction, no doubt subtle, nonetheless, is to be carefully observed for the reason that domains of justice in civil and criminal jurisdictions are clearly demarcated, therefore, inter se intrusion must be avoided. As corporal consequences are involved, application of punitive laws must be based upon strict construction and unless an act or omission clearly and independently fell within the defined ambit of a penal provision, its prosecution in criminal dispensation would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Every moral wrong is not a crime nor every broken promise or betrayal justiciable in criminal dispensation. Losses incurred by a claimant on account of alleged default or misrepresentation can be verified, assessed and determined through Civil Courts, a mechanism in place since time immemorial and in case the claims are well founded, these can be adequately and effectively indemnified; mere absence of a bar for simultaneous pursuits , in itself, is no justification for recourse in criminal jurisdiction in every run of the mill case. Exercise to subdue an adversary with divergent claim through engagement in criminal jurisdiction to settle civil scores cannot be suggested a bona fide pursuit under the law and thus needs to be discouraged. In the present case, the transaction is not denied nor the location of plot; pendency of civil suits inter se the parties is a common ground as well; the issue merely relates to the conversion of its character into a commercial unit and, if at all, an indication was mischievously given to the petitioner so as to induce him to clinch the deal, a host of remedies is available under the civil Statutes. The impugned order being not inconsonance with the above referred juridical considerations, warrants interference, therefore, Criminal Revision No.94 of 2016 is allowed and the impugned order dated 11-4-2016 is set aside. Needless to mention that observations recorded hereinbefore would not impact upon the respective claims of the parties in relevant jurisdiction. JK/S-62/L Revision allowed.