2016 PLP 104 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD MUDASSIR BHUTTA — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 104 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUDASSIR BHUTTA — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 104 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 104 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Hafiz Shahid Nadeem Kahloon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 104 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD MUDASSIR BHUTTA — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanveer Haider Buzdar for Petitioner.
- Mazhar Jamil Qureshi, A.A.-G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 22-B
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Grievance of petitioner was that Ex-officio Justice of Peace declined to direct police for registration of case on his complaint
Petitioner could not point out any legal and factual infirmity in the order in question and also could not controvert what was stated in police report and para wise comments furnished by police
Nothing on record showed that Ex-officio Justice of Peace improperly exercised discretion vested in him
Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not shut the doors of petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging private complaint
Issuing writ under Art. 199 of the Constitution in every case was not obligatory for High Court especially when adequate remedy in the form of private complaint was available to petitioner
High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace as there was no illegality and infirmity in it
Petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras 6 and 7 of the judgment] Habib Ullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others 2005 SCMR 951; Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti PLD 2010 SC 691 and Muhammad Waris v. S.H.O. and another 2014 MLD 1033 rel. Muhamamd Asghar, S.I. with record. JUDGMENT HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 12.01.2015 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Addl. Sessions Judge) Multan, whereby the application made by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of a case against respondent No.3 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner made an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. seeking direction for the registration of case against respondent No.3 before Ex-officio Justice of Peace stating therein that on 05.08.2013 he received a cheque of Rs.14,00,000/- from respondent No.3 as his share inherited by his father Maqbool Ahmad, who died on 20.09.2012 and respondent No.3 prepared a fake stamp paper on behalf of his dead father and making efforts to dispossess the petitioner illegally from a shop inherited to him by his father. In this regard, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are also pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. before the competent Court of law, which was dismissed. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after procuring the report from the police, dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that civil litigation is pending between the parties and petitioner submitted the said petition as counterblast to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that cognizable offence was made out but even then learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application of the petitioner arbitrarily.
4. On the other hand, learned law officer has contended that civil as well as criminal litigation is pending between the parties and petitioner wants to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one. The other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal and factual infirmity in the impugned order and also could not controvert what has been stated in the police report and parawise comments furnished by the police. There is nothing on record that the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace has improperly exercised discretion vested in him and impugned order has not shut the door of the petitioner to initiate the criminal proceedings by lodging private complaint. The filing of private complaint can provide an equal adequate remedy to the petitioner and he can lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance can adequately be redressed. The proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are also pending adjudication between the parties before learned Special Judicial Magistrate.
7. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case especially when the adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner. Reliance can be placed in case "Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others" (2005 SCMR 951), "Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti" (PLD 2010 SC 691) and "Muhammad Waris v. SHO and another" (2014 MLD 1033) in this behalf.
8. I have seen no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.01.2015 passed by learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace and same is hereby maintained. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. MH/M-211/L Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 12.01.2015 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Addl. Sessions Judge) Multan, whereby the application made by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of a case against respondent No.3 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner made an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. seeking direction for the registration of case against respondent No.3 before Ex-officio Justice of Peace stating therein that on 05.08.2013 he received a cheque of Rs.14,00,000/- from respondent No.3 as his share inherited by his father Maqbool Ahmad, who died on 20.09.2012 and respondent No.3 prepared a fake stamp paper on behalf of his dead father and making efforts to dispossess the petitioner illegally from a shop inherited to him by his father. In this regard, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are also pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. before the competent Court of law, which was dismissed. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after procuring the report from the police, dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that civil litigation is pending between the parties and petitioner submitted the said petition as counterblast to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that cognizable offence was made out but even then learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application of the petitioner arbitrarily.
4. On the other hand, learned law officer has contended that civil as well as criminal litigation is pending between the parties and petitioner wants to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one. The other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal and factual infirmity in the impugned order and also could not controvert what has been stated in the police report and parawise comments furnished by the police. There is nothing on record that the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace has improperly exercised discretion vested in him and impugned order has not shut the door of the petitioner to initiate the criminal proceedings by lodging private complaint. The filing of private complaint can provide an equal adequate remedy to the petitioner and he can lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance can adequately be redressed. The proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are also pending adjudication between the parties before learned Special Judicial Magistrate.
7. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case especially when the adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner. Reliance can be placed in case "Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others" (2005 SCMR 951), "Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti" (PLD 2010 SC 691) and "Muhammad Waris v. SHO and another" (2014 MLD 1033) in this behalf.
8. I have seen no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.01.2015 passed by learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace and same is hereby maintained. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. MH/M-211/L Petition dismissed.