' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this single order I propose to dispose of Writ Petition No,3048 of 2006 and Writ Petition No,3046 of 2006 as common question of law and fact are involved.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Akram Naeem writ petitioner in Writ Petition No,3046 of 2006 filed an application before the learned Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of a criminal case against the petitioner Abid Sultan and four others including respondent No,6, the Assistant Director Agriculture (P.P.) Pest Warning and Quality Control of Pesticides, Vehari on the ground that after his retirement in the year 2002 under Golden Hand Shake Scheme he was offered a job as the Regional Manager in the company owned by Abid Sultan and others namely Agro Market Company. The petitioner Muhammad Akram Naeem accepted the offer and submitted his educational documents to the respondents. However, Abid Sultan petitioner and others subsequently refused to honour their commitment and informed petitioner that they had appointed another person in his place.
Muhammad Akram Naeem thereafter visited the office of Deputy Director Pest Warning and Scouting Gulgasht Colony, Multan whereafter examining the files of mark Agro Company he discovered that his educational documents were enclosed with the file showing him as Regional Manager and that for all intents and purposes his name was being used by the said respondents.
3. On the application filed by Muhammad Akram Naeem under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Parawise commits were called for from respondent No,6 Muhammad Ashraf Assistant Director and after hearing the parties the learned Justice of Peace vide the impugned order, dated 12-6-2006 directed respondent No,6 to file an application with the S.H.O. For the registration of case against both the parties i.e. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,3046 of 2006 as well as the petitioner and other respondents in Writ Petition No,3048 of 2006.
4. Through the above mentioned writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the afore- mentioned orders inter alia on the grounds that the Justice of Peace was not justified in giving direction to respondent No,6, who was an accused in the application filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. By Muhammad Akram Naeem, to submit an application to S.H.O. For registration of case against Muhammad Akram Naeem, Abid Sultan and others and that the impugned order was beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. As on the application submitted by Muhammad Akram Naeem if commission of any cognizable offence had been disclosed the learned Justice of Peace could order registration of case which as per petitioner Abid Sultan was not the (sic) Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable under the law and was liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Akram Naeem in Writ Petition No,3046 of 2006 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,3048 and has not pressed the prayer to the extent of registration of the case against petitioner Abid Sultan and other accused mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General assisting in the matter on Court's call in all fairness does not controvert the stand taken by the writ petitioneRs,
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The application filed by Muhammad Akram Naeem under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence which would warrant registration of a criminal case against Abid Sultan and otheRs, In fact the matter between the parties is of civil nature as has been stated by respondent No,6 in the parawise comments submitted before the learned Justice of Peace.
While directing the respondent No,6 to file an application before the S.H.O. For registration of case against the petitioner in the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. And respondents Nos.2 to 4 the learned Justice of Peace clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter as section 22-A does not confer any jurisdiction on the Justice of Peace to direct registration of a case against the complainant/applicant and the respondents by directing a third party to file an application for the registration of a case. In the instant case the third party is none other than respondent No,6 who is also an accused in the application filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace.
9. The application filed by respondent No,6 pursuant to the impugned order has also been perused which does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by either of the parties and in any case the said respondent having taken the stand that the matter was of a civil nature between the two private parties in the parawise comments cannot be directed to take a contrary stand. The learned Justice of Peace at best could either accept the application of Muhammad Akram Naeem and direct registration of the case against the said respondents including respondent No,6 or refuse the registration of case if commission of any cognizable offence was not made out from the application. This third course adopted by the Justice of Peace is clearly beyond the purview of the powers conferred on the learned Justice of Peace by section 22-A, Cr. P.C.
10. Resultantly, the writ petitions are accepted and the order of the learned Justice of Peace, dated 12-6-2006 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.