2017 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.12.2012 whereby learned respondent No.1 while accepting application under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. directed SHO-respondent No.2 to record the version of the respondent No.3 under section 154, Cr.P.C. and then proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.

2. On the last date of hearing, this case was adjourned due to non-availability of learned counsel for respondent No.3 for today as statedly he was busy before another learned Bench of this court. Today case has been called repeatedly but neither respondent No.3 nor her counsel has entered appearance to argue the matter and assist this court. The instant writ petition relates to year 2012 wherein operation of impugned order was suspended vide order dated 12.12.2012. In these eventualities, when much water has already flowed under the bridge, this court is not inclined to adjourn this case only due to non-availability of learned counsel for respondent No.3 and would like to decide the same with able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this writ petition as well as the impugned order passed by learned respondent No.1, it has been noticed by this court that the respondent No.3 Bushra Bibi purchased a house comprising 5 Marlas from Alawan Bibi respondent No.7 in consideration of Rs.75000/- through stamp paper on 28.10.2006 and she was not given the possession of said house and she filed application to the police and arbitration was held and she has been returned back the amount of Rs.75000/- and the matter was patched up. In this regard she also executed receipt dated 30.11.2012 through a stamp paper available on the record. The learned Justice of Peace failed to appreciate this fact and has passed the impugned order. Possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that respondent No.3 has procured the order dated 5.12.2012 from the learned Justice of Peace in order to prevail upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the house. The learned Justice of Peace is not required to pass order for registration of case in each and every case rather the learned Justice of Peace should look into respective contentions of both the parties. I may observe here that when matter relates to documents i.e. agreement etc. then it is the duty of the Justice of Peace to procure the attendance of respondent (accused) before passing order for registration of case. Admittedly in this case, learned Justice of Peace has passed the impugned order at the back of petitioner without procuring his attendance. This court is conscious of the fact that once FIR is registered against a person his whole family suffers and he has to go through the rigours of investigation by police.

4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by the learned Justice of Peace is set aside. HBT/N-2/L Petition allowed.