IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 29-8-2007 passed by A the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab through which he has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of criminal case against the private respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-8-2007 when the petitioner was at Jauharabad for his work, respondents Nos.4 to 11 and 13 entered in the house of the petitioner forcibly, demolished the same and took away all the household articles including the building material. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the police and Ghulam Qadir A.S.-I. (respondent No,12) reached at the spot who saw all the aforesaid respondents-accused along with 40 unknown persons at the place of occurrence, but did not take any action; whereas the petitioner was threatened by the said A.S.-I.
To involve him in a false case, if he took legal action against the respondents-accused. Then the petitioner moved an application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the learned Justice of peace. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case; that the petitioner is owner in possession of the house where the occurrence had taken place; that respondents Nos.4 and 5 had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner and others, which was later on withdrawn on 17-5-2007 and now no civil litigation was pending between the parties; that the private respondents had entered in the house of the petitioner committed the cognizable offence, therefore, direction for registration of a criminal case against the private respondents may be issued.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of writ petition as well as other documents.
5. It is claimed that no civil suit was pending between the parties when the incident had taken place and the only suit filed by respondents Nos.4 and 5 was about another property and the same too was also dismissed as withdrawn. Even mere pendency of civil litigation is not sufficient to outrightly knock out the petitioner, unless he is provided opportunity to prove the allegation by producing the evidence. The petitioner has levelled serious allegation and the S.H.O./respondent No,3 is bound to register the case under section 154, Cr.P.C. If cognizable offence is reported. The learned Justice of Peace has passed an erroneous order, which is set aside and S.H.O. (respondent No,3) is directed to record the statement of the complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C.
' This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.