' M.A. ZAFAR, J.---Muhammad Hanif petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan' making multiple prayers in the petitioner. He has prayed for issuing direction to respondent No.2 for the registration of criminal case under section 489-F, P.P.C. For dishonouring of cheque amounting to Rs.48,75,000 it has also been prayed that case F.I.R. No. 56 of 2008 registered under sections 420/468/471/380, P.P.C. With Police Station Naulakha, Lahore against the petitioner be cancelled and quashed. It has also been prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may kindly be restrained from harassing, pressuring involving the petitioner in any case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is that he is running a company under the name and style of Master Textile Trader and supplies different types of goods and parts etc., to the Textile units. The respondent No.3 is also running two Textile Units in the name and style of Najia Textile and Rehmat Wazir Textile Units and the petitioner used to supply respondent No.3 various goods. In this regard, petitioner supplied to respondent No.3 Textile Units, the textile parts for an amount of Rs.64,00,000 upon which respondent No.3 made hard cash and for the remaining amount, the respondent No.3 issued a cheque amounting to Rs.48,75,000 drawn at Metropolitan Bank, Gulberg-III, Lahore which cheque when the petitioner deposited in his account for encashment for the same, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank authorities due to non-payment of the same. He further submits that he want to S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore for lodging of F.I.R. But he refused to register the case, then, he filed an application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. To the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, who called comments and after examining the contents of the petition and parawise comments of respondent/S.H.O. Ordered respondent No.2/S.H.O. To register a case and to proceed in accordance with law vide order, dated 14-1-2008. He further submits that after obtaining the order petitioner went to respondent No.2 for lodging the F.I.R. But at that time, respondent No.1, who happened to be the Superintendent of Police Naulakha Circle, without any cogent reason summoned the petitioner and started inquiring the matter, while ignoring the clear cut order of the learned ASJ for registration of the criminal case against respondent No.3. The act on the part of respondent No.1 was harsh and partial, while doing the inquiry into the matter, which is ultra vires, and against the law.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that time and again he approached the S.H.O. For the registration of criminal case at his instance but of no avail, then, he again filed an application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for complying with the order, dated 14-1-2008. Respondent No.3 also filed an application for recalling of the order, dated 14-1-2008 and when the case was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge learned counsel for respondent No.3 shows displeasure against the said learned Additional Sessions Judge and moved transfer application to learned Session Judge, Lahore.
Learned counnsel for the petitioner submits that instead of registering a case at the instance of the petitioner, he has been falsely involved in case F.I.R. No.56 of 2008 registered with Police Station Naulakha, Lahore and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. It is noticed that petition filed under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Disclosed commission of cognizable offence and in such like situation there was no option with the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Exh-officio Justice of Peace but to order for the registration of criminal case.
Reference is made to the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt and others (PLD 2007 SC 539) in which it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:-- "For the purposes of this petition, we are concerned, primarily, with clause (i) of the above quoted provisions of subsection (6) of the section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. These provisions create a new forum to rectify a wrong done by an officer Incharge of a Police Station by refusing to register a criminal case i.e. Not recording an F.I.R. We have held above that the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C.
Command a S.H.O. To lodge an F.I.R. If the information, conveyed to him disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the information being correct or incorrect. Undoing this wrong on non-registration of a criminal case would mean only an order to the S.H.O. To register the case. The provisions of the said subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Confer no additional powers on an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace to hold any enquiry to assess the credibility of such an information communicated for the purpose in-question nor do the said provisions give any extra authority to the said Ex-officio Justice of the Peace to refuse registration or order non-registration of an F.I.R. In violation of or beyond the mandatory requirements of section 154, Cr.P.C."
5. From the above, it is manifest that the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace has no option except to order registration of a criminal case if commission of a cognizable offence is made out from the contents of the petition as in the instant case. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace impugned in the petition is bad in law, he has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested with him.
6. The order, dated 14-1-2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is within the four corners of law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court. Respondent/S.H.O. Instead of complying with the order, dated 14-1-2008 registered the case against he petitioner. The unfortunate aspect of the matter is that when order, dated 14-1-2008 was not obeyed by S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, petitioner filed another application under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for issuing direction to comply with the order, dated 14-1-2008 and other side also filed an application for recalling of the said order. Before passing any order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the aforesaid application, petitioner has rushed to this Court seeking registration of the case on the strength of order, dated 14-1-2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
7. Another petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Was filed by respondent No.3 alleging that cheque in-question had been stolen, the learned Additional Sessions, Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace vide order, dated 18-1-2008 directed respondent No.3 to approach the S.H.O. Concerned and the S.H.O. Was directed to act in accordance with law if any cognizable offence is made out. After the said order F.I.R. No.56 of 2008 under sections 420/468/471/330, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Naulakha Lahore on 31-1-2008 at the instance of respondent No.3 against the petitioner.
Quashment of aforesaid F.I.R. Has also been sought for.
8. But that as it may, S.H.O. Police Station, Naulakha, Lahore is directed to register a case at the instance of the petitioner according to the contents of petition under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C.
Which prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence. As far as, quashing of case F.I.R.
No.56 of 2008, registered against the petitioner, is concerned, I am not inclined to quash the same.
However, the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate both the F.I.Rs. Simultaneously and to proceed in the matter in accordance with law without being influenced anything said in this order or any previous investigation conducted by him before registering a case because it is a settled law that investigation cannot be conducted without registering a criminal case and such act of the police is always not approved by the Courts. Resultantly petition is partly accepted to the extent of directing to register a case at the instance of petitioner.