' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6-2- 2007 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, respondent No,1, wherein certain observations and directions have been made, which according to the contention of the petitioner, are uncalled for, unlawful and beyond the scope and authority/powers of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
2. The brief facts, necessitating institution of the instant writ petition are that Zahid Mehmood alias Gosha, respondent No,3, filed a petition under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.0 before the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, Gujranwala against DPO, Gujranwala, SHO, Police Station Gakkhar Mandi, Tayyaba Kiran (the petitioner) and Sohail Aziz (the husband of Mst. Tayyaba Kiran) contending therein that cheques, forcibly obtained from him by the police may be ordered to be returned to him and that proceedings should be conducted against the respondent-accused.
3. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace called for the comments of SHO, P.S Gakkhar Mandi, District Gujranwala, respondent No,2 who submitted his report dated 18-1-2007 to the effect that nobody had extended threats to Zahid Mehmood nor the cheques were forcibly taken from him; the SHO further submitted that Mst. Tayyaba Kiran (the petitioner) and the wife of respondent No,3 were real sisters who had amicably settled their dispute through notables of the area.
4. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, on receipt of the said police report, passed the impugned order,' whereby, he observed as under:-- "Perusal of record reveals that the local police in its report dated 18-11-2007 had admitted that both the parties were summoned at P.S Gakkhar Mandi. The said cheques were got delivered from the petitioner amicably on the intervene of respectables of both the parties. The dispute going on between the parties was admittedly of civil nature and under the law the local police could not interfere in it without registration of a criminal case. The action taken by the respondent No,2 in obtaining the aforementioned cheques from the petitioner was an excess committed by him in relation to his functions and duties within the meaning of section 22-A(6) clause III, Cr.P.C. The present petition is, therefore, accepted and respondent No,2 is directed to get the aforementioned cheques returned to the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 6-2-2007 passed by respondent No,1 is illegal, void ab initio and unlawful which is liable to be set aside; that the impugned order has been passed in disregard to the relevant law and facts of the case; that a civil suit had been filed by Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 in the Civil Court, Gujranwala along with an application for temporary injunction but the learned Civil Judge refused to award interim injunction by holding that monitory loss was no loss; that the impugned order has been passed on the back of the petitioner who has been condemned unheard; that one of the three cheques bearing No,0058211 is the case property of case F.I.R. No,145 of 2007 dated 1-2-2007 under section, Police Station, Model Town, Lahore against Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3; that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had assumed the charge of an Investigating Officer by passing the order qua return of cheques to Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3, through SHO, Police Station Gakkhar Mandi; that the impugned order is patently illegal without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eyes 'of law; that the impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
6. On the other hand; learned counsel for the respondent No,3 contends that Tayyaba Kiran, the petitioner, presented an application before DPO, Gujranwala, who, in violation of all provisions of law summoned Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 to the Police Station Gakkhar Mandi and made him issue three cheques bearing No,0058210, 0058211 and 0058212, duly signed by him, under coercion and delivered these cheques to Tayyaba Kiran (petitioner) and her husband Sohail Aziz; that Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 having been disgraced and harassed by the DPO, Gujranwala, moved an application before the D.I.-G., Gujranwala, who entrusted the matter for inquiry to Additional D.I.-G, Gujranwala who after detailed inquiry formulated his report to the effect that a pecuniary dispute existed between wife of Dr. Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 and the wife of Professor Sohail Aziz but Zahid Mehmood had been forced to issue the cheques, whereas, he was not supposed to do so as everyone was responsible for one's own deeds, therefore, he recommended that the act of obtaining cheques from Dr.Zahid Mehmood was illegal and unlawful and that the cheques should be declared as invalid; The Additional D.I.-G. Further held in inquiry that the wife of Sohail Aziz (Tayyaba kiran, the petitioner) could receive her money from the wife of Dr. Zahid Mehmood through a legal recourse; that Mst. Tayyaba Kiran had instituted a civil suit for cancellation of exchange agreement which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 12-10- 2009; that the inquiry report formulated by the Additional D.I.-G., had been challenged by Mst.
Tayyaba Kiran through a separate Writ Petition No,889 of 2007 which is also pending adjudication for today; that in the light of the findings of the Additional D.I.-G. Gujranwala, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had passed the impugned order dated 6-2-2007; that Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 did not owe any amount at all to Mst. Tayyaba Kiran, the petitioner, so, the act of obtaining cheques from him by the DPO, Gujranwala and passing it over to Mst. Tayyaba Kiran etc. Was absolutely illegal, uncalled for and a worst example of abuse of process of law and authority; that the order of learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, has been passed correctly who, has not traversed beyond scope of his authority; lastly contends that the instant petition may be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The petitioner admittedly has a monitory dispute with Mst. Mubashara Iram, the wife of Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3. Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 did not owe even a single penny to Mst. Tayyaba Kiran, the petitioner or to her husband Professor Sohail Aziz yet, he was compelled by the DPO, Gujranwala and SHO Police Station, Gakkhar Mandi to come to Police Station Gakkhar Mandi where he was forced to issue three aforesaid cheques with his signatures, which were handed over to the petitioner Mst. Tayyaba Kiran and her husband. There cannot be a worst example of abuse of process of authority and law by a senior Police Officer like the DPO, Gujranwala and under his subordination by the SHO Police Station Gakkhar Mandi. If Mst. Tayyaba Kiran, the petitioner had any pecuniary dispute with the wife of Zahid Mehmood , respondent No,3, she could resolve the matter firstly at the family level being the close relatives and in case of failure, she could agitate the matter before a competent civil court for redressal of her grievance.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly argued that Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 was responsible for all the acts and deeds of his wife and if any wrong had been done by Mubashara Iram, it was necessarily Zahid Mehmood, respondent No,3 to be taken to task. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently illegal and militates against the basic principles of law and equity, as, every body is liable for one's act and deed. The wife of Zahid, Mehmood, respondent No,3 is an independent entity like any other individual. In both the inquiries, first conducted by S.H.O., Police Station Gakkhar Mandi, District Gujranwala and Additional D.I.-G.
Gujranwala, the conclusion drawn is common, which relates to the fact that Mubashara ham, the wife of Zahid Mehmood respondent No,3 owed a sum of Rs,3,50,000 to Tayyaba Kiran, the petitioner and in none of the two inquiries it has been opined by the Inquiry Officers that Zahid Mehmood had ever received any amount of money from Mst. Tayyaba Kiran. In this eventuality, to pressurize and overawe Zahid Mehmood, responden No,3 for issuance of the aforesaid cheques, is unjustified and undesirable.
9. So far as the impugned order passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is concerned he appears to have been swa yed away by the excesses, as discussed above, committed by the police, therefore, some element of harshness has crept in the impugned order, whereby, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has directed the respondent No,2 to get the aforementioned cheques returned to the petitioner. Besides, the other observations made in the impugned order are absolutely on the legal plank.
10. What can be the validity of the cheque No,0058211, the case property of case F.I.R. No,43 of 2007, supra, shall be best assessed by the learned trial Court, seized with the trial of the said case. The petitioner has all the legal remedies available at her disposal to get her grievance redressed by approaching the competent civil court, it so advised. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order barring the one, as discussed above.
11. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.