SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 11577 of 2009 filed by petitioner to call in question the validity of an order dated 6-6-2009 whereby respondent No. 1 in purported exercise of powers conferred under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. As Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore directed S.H.O. Police Station Manawan Lahore to record the information on the statement/ application of the complainant and then to proceed according to law and the copy of the order be sent to the S.H.O.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that apparently respondent No. 4 filed an application in terms of sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before respondent No. 1 Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Lahore, alleging therein that in 2004, he had entered into an agreement to sell with the pro forma respondents and substantial amount of money had been paid to them. It was further asserted that the land in respect whereof agreement ibid had been entered into, did not exist. It was the case of respondent No. 4 that he had entered into the said transaction on the "instigation" of the present petitioner namely Mian Abdul Waheed. Respondent No.1 the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace obtained the comments from the respondent No. 2, who stated that he had not been approached, whereafter, the impugned order dated 6-6-2009 was passed.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner is a respectable person and a well-known politician, who besides being the Member of the National Assembly had also been the Ambassador to Germany and Italy. It is further contended that the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Has been moved five years after the alleged transaction, of which the petitioner is neither a party nor beneficiary. The agreement in question pertains to respondent No. 4 and pro forma respondents. Learned counsel reiterates that the petitioner had been harassed in the past by police functionaries necessitating invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on more than one occasions. Further adds that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature, of which, the petitioner is not even a party, and the impugned order being mechanical in nature amounts to abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 controverts the contentions being raised on behalf of the petitioner by contending that there is no statute of limitation regarding registration of criminal case, and respondent No. 2 is bound by law to register a criminal case in consonance with the directions of the Ex-Office Justice of Peace.
5. Heard. Record perused. There appears to be a dispute inter se respondent No. 4 and the pro forma respondents with regard to an agreement to sell qua some land. The present petitioner admittedly is not a party to the said agreement or the transaction. It is not the case of respondent No. 4, as disclosed in the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. That he paid any money to the present petitioner. Application was filed before respondent No. 1 five years after the alleged transaction in dispute which apparently look place in 2004. There is a history of harassment of the petitioner by the police regarding same matter in respect whereof Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court had earlier been invoked through Writ Petitions Nos. 8242-2009 and 7957-2009. Jurisdiction under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Is not to be exercised mechanically by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by directing registration of F.I.Rs. In each and every case, and each case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts. This Court is fortified by the dictum of law as laid down by the Honorable apex Court in the case reported as PLD 2010 SC 691 Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not perhaps appropriate for respondent No. 1 to have passed the order impugned, especially when respondent No. 4 had an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint.
6. For the foregoing facts and reasons this Court finds it a fit case for interference and invalidation of the order impugned. Consequently, by accepting this Writ Petition, I set aside the order impugned. Needless to observe that respondent No. 4 may have resort to the alternate remedy available under the law.