' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Brief facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition may be given first: Allegedly Allah Jawaya, petitioner, secured his appointment as labourer in Allah Tawakal Factory, Chohan Road. Lahore owned by Muhammad Shaukat, respondent No.4. The petitioner performed his duty w,e,f, 5-7-2005 to 7-1-2006 under certain terms and conditions set up in the appointment order. Allegedly Rs,11,000 wages for the above said period became due to the petitioner from the respondent/factory owner. On 16-1-2006 the petitioner made an application under section 22-A and B Cr.P.C. Before Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, Lahore seeking a direction to the S.H.O. Police Station, Islampura for registration of a case against the factory owner with an allegation that on 7- 1-2006 he gave him pushes, turned him out to the office and extended life threats while giving severe beating. The Ex-officio Justice of the Peace allowed the petitioner's request vide order dated 24-1-2006, which reads .As under:-- "According to the comments submitted by S.H.O. Concerned no application has been moved by the petitioner at the P.S. If the petitioner moves any application at the P.S. Legal action would be taken.
2. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to approach S.H.O. Concerned with an application who is further directed to act in accordance with law, if a cognizable offence is made out.- Disposed of accordingly, File be consigned to recorded room after its due completion."
2. Under the above said order, the local police did not register a case on statement of the petitioner. On 18-2-2006 the petitioner made an application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for taking necessary action against the S.H.O., Police Station, Islampura with an allegation that .He violated earlier order dated 24-1-2006. The local police contested the complainant's claim with the pleas that he himself slipped away when he was asked to substantiate his allegation with some material. The explanation by the police did not find favour with Ex-officio Justice of the Peace. The S.H.O. Was again directed vide order dated 13-3-2006, to conduct proceedings in the light of earlier order dated 24-1-2006. The local police did not register the case even in compliance with the second direction of Ex-officio Justice of Peace, upon which another complaint was filed by the petitioner on 8-4-2008, which was disposed of by Ex- officio Justke the Peace on 19-4-2006 with a direction to the petitioner to accompany the S.H.O. The same day, who would ensure conclusion of investigation, the case was recommended for cancellation vide negative final report under section 173 read with 169, Cr.P.C. The learned Area Magistrate agreed with the police request and cancelled the case vide order dated 23-2-2009, now under challenge at the instance of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the factory owner withheld the wages due to Allah Jawaya, petitioner, gave him severe beatings and extended life threats, which escaped notice of the learned Area Magistrate while, passing the impugned order. He has further argued that the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation of the case on facts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel at some length and perused the record very minutely. The police registered the case under sections 384 and 506, P.P.C. Which are reproduced below for ready reference:-- ' Section 384, P.P.C.
' Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
' Section 506, P.P.C ' Whoever commit offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if the threat be to death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute chastity to a woman shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
5. I take up section 384, P.P.C. Which deals with the offence of extortion. Section 383, P.P.C. Defines the offence of extortion to the effect that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property commits extortion. Essence of the offence of extortion is actual delievery of possession of property moveable or immoveable by the person under threat. In case in hand, the petitioner/complainant did not deliver possession of any property to the respondent factory owner or anyone else in consequence of the alleged threats. The case of the complainant was that the respondent factory owner did not pay him the wages. To a question as to how and on what basis the provisions of section 384, P.P.C. Had been applied against the factory owner against whom the only allegation, in brief, was that he did not pay wages to the labourer, the learned counsel has been left with no other option but to concede expressly that the offence of extortion was neither committed nor made out and that the Investigating Officer applied wrong provisions of law.
6. Now I take up the offence of criminal intimidation allegedly committed by the respondent/factory owner. Section 503, P.P.C. Defines criminal intimidation, which is punishable under 'section 506 of the Code. A combined examination of these two provisions of law would show that the threat simplicity without causing the threatened person to do which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally bound to do, does not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation punishable under section 506, P.P.C. To constitute the above said offence the person accused of the offence must be shown to have threatened the complainant with an injury to his person or property, with intent to cause alarm. For two reasons I am of the considered view that the offence of criminal intimidation is not made out even if the complainant's version set up in the F.I.R is believed in toto. Firstly, the respondent factory owner did not threaten the complainant to do an act, which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he was legally bound to do. Allegedly, the complainant approached the respondent factory owner in his office and demanded outstanding wages in question upon which the latter extended threats and refused to pay the wages. Secondly, it was not an offence of criminal intimidation as per complainant's own version because he had allegedly been beaten up. During the course of investigation as well as before the Area Magistrate the complainant completely failed to substantiate the above allegation with evidence. The petitioner did not get himself examined for the injuries, which he allegedly received at the hands of the factory owner. In absence of medico legal report the allegation by the petitioner/complainant that he had been beaten up severely, is nothing else but his self-assertion, which cannot be the substitute of evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that Allah Jawaya, petitioner, had been examined in General Hospital, Lahore for his injuries. In support of this assertion a reference is made to a photo static copy of MRI report, marked-A. I have gone through the document, which is of no help to the petitioner because he had been diagnosed a patient of severe backache. In the light of MRI report, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been beaten up by the respondent factory owner.
8. The alleged occurrence took place in the office of the respondent factory owner. On 7-1-2006.
The F.I.R was drawn up on 18-11-2007. This is a matter of record that the complainant completely failed to prove his allegations during the course of investigation and that is why cancellation report in the case had been prepared. I have no doubt in my mind that it was a bona fide dispute of wages, if any, between the petitioner and the factory owner, which should have been laid for adjudication before Punjab Labour Court, Lahore. It appears that under some wrong advice, the petitioner invoked criminal law to get resolved a dispute falling within the exclusive domain of Labour. Court.
9. The petitioner/complainant got registered the case in question under the order of Ex-officio Justice of the Peace. The request of petitioner had been dealt with by ex-officio Justice of the Peace in a mechanical way without application of legal mind. Instead of forming a definite opinion about worth of the petitioner's request, ex-officio Justice of the Peace delegated his powers and functions to the S.H.O. Asking him to decide as to whether or not a cognizable offence was made out. Had Ex-officio Justice of the. Peace examined the petitioner's request with legal mind, he would have dismissed the application in limine advising him to approach the Labour Court for determination of the dispute of wages with the factory owner. There was no legal and factual justification to make over the dispute of wages between the worker and the factory owner of the police station.
10. A bare perusal of section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C, whereunder ex-officio Justice of the Peace exercise authority would show that he is competent to issue an appropriate direction to the Police on a complaint regarding non-registration of a criminal case; transfer of investigation from one police office to another on neglect, failure or excess committed by the police authority in relation to its functions and duties. Ex-officio Justice of the Peace is not supposed to allow each and every complaint under the. Above said provisions of law mechanically and without application of legal mind. Under the above quoted provisions of law he is required to issue appropriate direction to the police. The phrase, "appropriate direction" has not been defined in the Code, however, its legal interpretation and meanings would be to take suitable action in the light of given circumstances.
The order in question of Ex-officio Justice of the peace does not qualify the above said.Legal test. It is painful to note that ex-officio Justice of the Peace disposed of successive applications by the complainant in a casual way. Had the contents of the petitions been looked into by ex-officio justice of the Peace, the only appropriate order which could have been passed was to direct the petitioner to lay his grievance, if any, before the Labour Court. In fact the mechanical approach of Ex-officio Justice of the Peace towards the point in issue contributed towards initiation of frivolous litigation between the laboure and the factory owner before wrong forum.
11. For, what has - been stated above, I feel no difficulty in concluding that the Investigating Officer rightly recommended cancellation of the case. The order of Area Magistrate by means of which he agreed with the result of investigation is not open to any factual or legal exception. I, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine. The petitioner has wasted precious time of the Court. However, I exercise a restrain and do not impose penal cost keeping in view his financial position.