2006 P Cr (PLP)
REHMAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, NAROWAL and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, NAROWAL and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (REHMAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, NAROWAL and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Powers and duties of Justice of Peace---Petitioner had sought a direction for registration of criminal case against four persons and for setting aside the order of Justice of Peace whereby application of petitioner under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., was dismissed---In application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. as well as in the constitutional petition, persons against whom registration of criminal case was sought by petitioner, had not been arrayed as respondents---According to comments submitted by the Police before Justice of Peace had revealed that claim of petitioner regarding abduction of her son was totally baseless as no such occurrence had taken place---Similar petition earlier filed by petitioner, had been dismissed and since said earlier petition was dismissed on merits, without there being any fresh ground a similar petition could not be preferred---In application filed by petitioner under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., no specific date and time of alleged occurrence was mentioned, which had created serious doubts about authenticity of version narrated by petitioner---Petitioner, even otherwise had adequate alternate remedy available under law by way of filing a private complaint against said four persons---Controversy, essentially pertained to disputed questions of fact which exercise could not be undertaken in constitutional jurisdiction-of the High Court---Counsel for petitioner having not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in impugned order warranting interference by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, petition was dismissed.
- Muhammad Jamil Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 22-B
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Powers and duties of Justice of Peace
Petitioner had sought a direction for registration of criminal case against four persons and for setting aside the order of Justice of Peace whereby application of petitioner under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., was dismissed
In application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. as well as in the constitutional petition, persons against whom registration of criminal case was sought by petitioner, had not been arrayed as respondents
According to comments submitted by the Police before Justice of Peace had revealed that claim of petitioner regarding abduction of her son was totally baseless as no such occurrence had taken place
Similar petition earlier filed by petitioner, had been dismissed and since said earlier petition was dismissed on merits, without there being any fresh ground a similar petition could not be preferred
In application filed by petitioner under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., no specific date and time of alleged occurrence was mentioned, which had created serious doubts about authenticity of version narrated by petitioner
Petitioner, even otherwise had adequate alternate remedy available under law by way of filing a private complaint against said four persons
Controversy, essentially pertained to disputed questions of fact which exercise could not be undertaken in constitutional jurisdiction-of the High Court
Counsel for petitioner having not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in impugned order warranting interference by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for registration of a criminal case against Mohsin son of Mehdi, Zaheer son of Bashir, Ramzan son of Muhammad Anwar and Waqas son of Ilyas and for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, dated 8-9-2006, whereby the application of the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an application on 21-8-2006 with the District Police Officer, Narowal, seeking registration of a case against the aforementioned persons which was entrusted to the S.H.O., however, the needful was not done. Consequently, the petitioner had to resort to filing of a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, on which comments were called from the concerned Police Officer. The comments, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner were concocted and not based on true facts, hence the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace passed while relying on the same was illegal and not in accordance with law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application filed by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, the comments submitted by the police and the impugned order.
4. In the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. as well as in the instant writ petition the persons against whom registration of criminal case is sought have not been arrayed as respondents. The comments submitted by the police before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace reveal that the claim of the petitioner regarding abduction of her son was totally baseless as no such occurrence had taken place. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner earlier filed a similar petition before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on 17-7-2006, which was dismissed, whereafter she filed another application before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Gondal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal. Since her earlier petition had been dismissed on merit, as such without there being any fresh ground a similar petition cannot be preferred. In the application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. no specific date and time of the alleged occurrence is mentioned which creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the version narrated by the petitioner. The petitioner, even otherwise, has adequate alternate remedy available under the law by way of filing a private complaint against the aforementioned persons.
5. The controversy essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact which exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR
276. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. Resultantly, this petition being without any force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./R-49/L Petition dismissed.