YLR 2014

2014 PLP 2570 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD JAMSHAID — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.9812 of 2013, decided on 13th February, 2014.
Honorable Judges
Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2014 PLP 2570 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J
Parties MUHAMMAD JAMSHAID — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 2570 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 2570 (YLR)?

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: 2014 PLP 2570 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD JAMSHAID — Petitioner Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Shoaib Khokhar for Petitioner.
  • Mehmood Khan for Respondent No.3.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 22-A

Registration of case

Respondent had secured a direction from Justice of Peace for registration of case against the petitioner on various grounds

Police had reported that occurrence alleged in the application filed by respondent under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. had not taken place

Justice of Peace despite that vide impugned order issued direction to the petitioner to make statement before the S.H.O.

Validity

Justice of Peace, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner

Justice of Peace, while passing impugned order, had not examined the Police report

Keeping the order of Justice of Peace in field, when application filed by respondent had been consigned, would amount to misuse of process of law

Impugned order passed by Justice of Peace was set aside, resulting into the dismissal of application filed by respondent under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. Wali Muhammad Khan, A.A.-G. and Aulad Hussain, S.I. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

Pervaiz Akhtar respondent No.3 has secured a direction from learned Justice of Peace, Lahore for the registration of the case against the petitioner on various grounds in which case, the police had reported that the occurrence alleged in the application filed by respondent No.3 under section 22-A Cr.P.C. had not taken place but despite that the learned Justice of Peace vide order dated 7-3-2013 issued direction to the petitioner to make statement before the S.H.O. of the police station. This order is the subject-matter of the instant petition.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is found that first Justice of Peace, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner and same was the position after the issuance of direction by the learned Justice of Peace that no such occurrence had even taken place. The learned Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order has not examined the police report. Now the situation is the same that in opinion of the police, the occurrence as reported in the application of respondent No.3 has never taken place and application of respondent was consigned. In view of these circumstances, keeping the order of learned Justice of Peace in field would amount the misuse of process of law.

3. In this view of the matter, the petition in hand is accepted and the order passed by the learned Justice of Peace dated 7-3-2013 is set aside resulting into the dismissal of the application filed by respondent No.3 under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. HBT/M-129/L Petition accepte