' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J---Through the instant Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed for passing a direction to respondent No,2 for recording of her statement and registration of an F.I.R.
Against respondent No,3 for commission of an offence under section '489-F, P . P. C .
2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the instant petition, are that the respondent No,3 issued a cheque bearing No,301376 amounting to Rs, 1,57,590 in favour of the present petitioner, which was twice returned by the concerned Bank due to insufficient funds. The petitioner approached respondent No,2 for registration of a case but the same was not done. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For the redressal of her griencance but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha, vide order dated 20-9-2008. The petitioner contended that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha has only relied upon the police report, which resulted in an order contrary to the law laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Office, Okara Cantt. And others (PLD 2007 SC 539) and Asif Mahmood v. The State and another (2009 PCr.LJ 374). The petitioner further contended that the Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, vide his letter dated 6-9-2008 sent the cheque in dispute through registered post at the residential address of the account holder but the same was lost in transit. The petitioner, who is a female, has claimed that a fraud has been committed with her and the police in connivance with the opposite party have refused to register a case. Hence, the instant petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara.
Cantt. And others (supra). He further submitted that neither the SHO nor the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace could determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the information provided to them in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 submitted that the original cheque in dispute has not been produced. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Offiico Justice of Peace, Sargodha. Dismissed the application of the present petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. As the police has found the petition as false. He also contended that the petitioner did not allege in her application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. That the cheque in dispute was dishonestly issued towards the repayment of loan or fulfilment of an obligation and as such, no offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Is made out against the respondent No,3.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 20-9-2008 would reveal that the same was passed relying primarily on the report of the police, wherein it was mentioned that Babar Hameed/respondent No,3 took an amount of Rs,1,57,000 from the present petitioner/Mst. Almas Sarwar for business purposes, in lieu thereof, a cheque as a surety/ guarantee was issued. Not only the police but also the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have mentioned in their report dated 18-9-2008 and order dated 20-9-2008, respectively, that the respondent No,3/Babar Hameed, has paid an amount of Rs,1,57,000 to Mst. Almas Sarwar in instalments and has cleared his liability. It is evident from the report of police, dated 18-9-2008, which was submitted in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha, that the present respondent No,3/Babar Hameed gave a cheque amounting to Rs,1,57,000 to the present petitioner. It is also, prima facie, established from the certificate, issued by the Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, City Branch, Sargodha dated 6-9-2008, that a Cheque bearing No,301376 dated 21-4-2008 amounting to Rs,1,57,5000 was deposited in his Branch by Mst.
Almas Sarwar, which was twice returned un-paid by the drawee/Bank i,e,, Bank Alfalah Limited., Sargodha, with the remarks of insufficient funds.
7. In view of above, police report dated 18-9-2008, coupled with the aforementioned certificate, issued by Manager, NBP, City Branch, Sargodha dated 6-9-2008, prima facie, proves that Babar Hameed/ respondent No,3 gave a cheque amounting to Rs,1,57,500 to the present petitioner, which was dishonoured by the concerned Bank, when the same was presented for enchashment. The question whether the said cheque was issued by respondent No,3 with dishonest intentions or otherwise, towards the repayment of loan or fulfilment of an obligation could only be decided during the investigation. In the instant case, not only the police but also the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha entered into a detailed analysis of the allegations and embarked upon an inquiry for determining of the veracity of the petition presented to them which is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. And others (supra). An Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is empowered to direct registration of a case but has no jurisdiction to undertake a detailed analysis of the allegations and other material and record his own opinion thereon which needs investigation. The present petitioner/ complainant, who alleges the commission of a cognizable offence has a right that her statement should be recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. And her allegation should be investigated into and taken to its logical and legal end. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20-9-2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Sargodha, is declared to be illegal and the same is accordingly set aside. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and respondent No,2 is directed to record the statement of the petitioner and in case, it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, he should take necessary proceedings as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C.