2013 PLP 624 (YLR)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 26-8-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Multan, whereby an application moved by him under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. was dismissed with the contention that the same is without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.

2. It is contended that respondent No.2 has approached to register a case against respondents Nos.3 to 5 but he did not perform his duties in accordance with law so the petitioner was constrained to move an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. along with the verification report of the Tehsildar regarding commission of forgery but the same has been dismissed illegally. It is urged that the respondent No.2 was under obligation to record the F.I.R. in view of the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. and the learned ASJ/JOP on presentation of an application complaining the non-feasance of Police officials had no authority to reject it rather was obliged to issue a direction for registration of the case.

3. The petitioner had contended in the application that respondent No.3 is a tenant under him over House No.636/6-M, Mohallah Dawud Jahanian Dehli Gate, Multan, comprising of one room, bath room and courtyard and committed default in payment of rent. It is alleged that on demand for payment of rent, respondents Nos.3 and 4 enter in the dwelling place of the petitioner, interfere in the privacy, cause torture to her father everyday, damage the household articles or commit theft. It is contended that respondent No.2 filed a frivolous suit against the petitioner and has obtained the interim injunction by producing the forged and fictitious Fard Malkiat.

4. This petition was dismissed through the impugned order by the learned ASJ/JOP by observing that the civil suit between the parties is pending and there is possibility of submission of the application in order to put pressure on the respondents and that no cognizable offence has taken place.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C., the Ex Officio Justice of Peace is vested with the power to issue a direction for registration of the case only and cannot reject the petition on any ground whatsoever and it is only for the concerned S.H.O. to conduct the investigation as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and that the contents of the petition vividly revealed commission of the cognizable offence and the learned ASJ/JOP has committed material irregularity in holding that the commission of such offence was not made out and that the petition was moved with ulterior motive.

6. No specific incident regarding making of trespass, causing of torture, mischief or theft is given. No specific date or time of the occurrence is mentioned in the application. A general allegation to the effect that respondents Nos.3 and 4 resorted to said activities creates a reasonable doubt as to its correctness. The second contention that the respondents got an injunction on the basis of forged and fictitious Fard Malkiat shows that the alleged offence was committed in relation to the proceedings of the court so the order for issuance of the direction to register the case could have been passed as under section 195(1)(C), Cr.P.C., the cognizance of such offence can be taken only on the complaint of the court concerned. Admittedly, there is a dispute regarding possession of the house so the learned ASJ/JOP rightly held that there is a possibility of submission of the petition to put pressure on the respondents Nos.3 and

4. The contention that the learned ASJ/JOP is authorized only to pass an order for registration of the case and cannot reject this prayer is devoid of force because if the law has conferred upon him the authority to issue direction for registration of the case, it has in the same manner authorized him to lawfully decline the request, if it is proved that the same is made with ulterior motive or without reasonable grounds. The petitioner has efficacious remedy in form of private complaint regarding alleged commission of offence of trespassing or theft, etc. and can move an application before the concerned court regarding submission of forged Fard Malkiat in proceedings, if his contention is substantiated at any stage. The learned ASJ/JOP in the given circumstances was fully justified in refusing to issue the direction for the registration of the case. The writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. MWA/M-40/L Petition dismissed.