2008 PLP 2406 (YLR)

KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.

Rana Inam Ullah Khan, petitioner made an Application No.1892 of 2007 under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr. P. C. before Ex-officio Justice of Peace with a request for registration of case against Rana Muhammad Pervez, respondent No.2, with an allegation that during his employment with the petitioner, he mis-appropriated huge amount. That petition came up for hearing on 24-7-2007 before an Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore with the powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who disposed of the matter by means of a few worded order, which reads as under: "The instant application has been moved by the petitioner for registration of case against Rana Muhammad Pervaiz as he committed fraud and mis-appropriated the account of the petitioner. (2) The comments from S.H.O. has been submitted. (3) Arguments heard. Record perused. (4) The S.H.O. is directed to proceed according to law against Rana Muhammad Pervaiz, if cognizable offence is made out. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room after due completion." Under the above said order no action favourable to the petitioner herein was taken. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No.9840 of 2007 before this Court for implementation of above said order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace. On 10-10-2007 the Constitutional Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner made an application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace with a complaint that his earlier order dated 24-7-2007 had not been complied with. The second petition was sent to Capital City Police Officer, Lahore for an appropriate action against delinquent police officer under section 155 (C) of the Police Order, 2002.

2. The second petition by the petitioner forwarded to the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore met with the same fate. Hence, this Constitutional Petition with the contention that the S.H.O. Police Station, Model Town, Lahore/respondent No.1 was legally bound to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner in compliance with the above said order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace.

3. Without advertising to the merits and demerits of the petitioner's case, which was laid twice before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, I must say, at the very outset, that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace seized of the matter failed to pass an effective legal order. He disposed of the petition moved by the petitioner herein with a direction to the S.H.O. to proceed in accordance with law in case a cognizable offence was made out against Rana Muhammad Pervez, respondent. Here I would also say that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace would have decided as to what was in accordance with law. He left the controversy to the judgment of respondent/S.H.O. asking him to decide as to what was in accordance with law. In this way the Ex-officio Justice of Peace mortgaged his legal duties and functions to the S.H.O. The application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. was placed before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of a case with certain allegations. It was primary duty of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace to see as to whether or not any cognizable offence was made out. He delegated his authority to the S.H.O. in slipshod manner by means of a few worded meaningless order.

4. The second petition by the petitioner before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was forwarded to C.C.P.O, Lahore for an appropriate action under Police Order, 2002 against the police official who failed to comply with the earlier order dated 24-7-2007, referred to above. As a matter of fact the Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not pass any effective legal order on 24-7-2007 and there was no question of its non-compliance. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace left the controversy to the judgment of S.H.O. to decide as to what was in accordance with law. The S.H.O. decided the controversy against the petitioner under the delegated powers. In this view of the matter there was no legal or factual justification to direct C.C.P.O., Lahore for action against the S.H.O. Had the Ex-officio Justice of Peace directed and ordered the respondent/S.H.O. to register a case on the complaint of Rana Inam Ullah, petitioner, with an observation that prima facie a cognizable offence was made out against Rana Muhammad Pervez, the Ex-officio Justice of Peace would have been justified in directing the C.C.P.O. for action against the S.H.O. In fact, the Ex-officio Justice of Peace disposed of the petition made by the petitioner mechanically without resolving the point in issue.

5. For what has been stated above, I dispose of this petition at limine stage with an observation that original petition No.1892 of 2007 moved by the petitioner for registration of a case will be deemed as pending before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace for its disposal in accordance with law. M.H./I-25/L Case remanded.