SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---The petitioner's application for registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.3 to 5 and some unknown persons, having not been attended to by the respondent No,2/S.H.O., Police Station, Mughalpura, Lahore, lead the petitioner to approach the Ex- officio Justice of Peace/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by filing a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. for the same relief. The Ex-officio Justice of Peace/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore after calling comments from the S.H.O., Police Station, Mughalpura, Lahore, vide order dated 3-2-2011, dismissed the petition. Hence, the instant petition.
2. Briefly, the case of the present petitioner, contained in his application, addressed to respondent No,2 is that he purchased a commercial plot from LARECHS Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., through an auction. The petitioner raised construction over the said plot as per the approved plan.
However, on 19-1-2011, Railway employees, namely, Usman Abdullah, DEN-1, Adil Cheema, AEN-III, Abdul Rahim. I.O. W-4 along with 15 unknown persons, without prior notice, demolished the said construction and took away along with them doors, windows, girders and T-iron etc. It is also alleged in the application that the Railway officials had demanded Rs,300,000 as illegal gratification to avoid demolition.
3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that the application submitted to respondent No,2/S.H.0., Police Station, Mughalpura Lahore, disclosed a cognizable offence but the S.H.O. instead of lodging an F.I.R. illegally and unlawfully refused to register a case against the accused persons. The learned counsel further contended that the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the information conveyed to the S.H.O. prior to the registration of the F.I.R. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539).
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the respondents contended that respondents Nos.3 to 5 are Government officials and they removed the encroachment in the discharge of their official duties. They submitted that the respondents have not committed any theft of doors and windows etc. as the same have been taken into possession by the police in accordance with law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. No doubt under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. and the law as expounded by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforementioned judgment the only jurisdiction which could be exercised by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was to examine whether the information disclosed by the application did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if did, then to direct the concerned S.H.O. to record the F.I.R. without going into the veracity of the information in question. From the very contents of the complaint, it is revealed that the construction of the petitioner has been demolished by the Railway officials and it is their stand that they have done so in discharge of their official duties. As regards the theft of the different articles of the demolished construction is concerned, it has been reported that the said material has been taken into possession by the S.H.O., Railway Police, Mughalpura. It has also been reported that the petitioner was in illegal possession of land owned by Pakistan Railways. The petitioner was issued repeated notices and the possession was taken over by the Railway officials A with the help of police. A criminal case also stands registered against the present petitioner in Railway Police Station. In these circumstances, it is observed that the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect, warranting interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. No case is made out for setting aside the impugned order dated 3-2-2011. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed.