' SYED EJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---The petitioner Syed Sabtain Raza Gilani filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For, suance of a direction to the S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. Multan to register a case against Abdul Sattar respondent No.5 maintaining that he had sent his `Phutti' to the cotton factory of Abdul Sattar known as Abdullah Haseeb Cotton Factory D.G. Khan and in that context Abdul Sattar owed him a sum of Rs.3,75,00,000 for which he issued a Cheque bearing No.50627243 dated 18-7-2011 to be drawn on the Bank of Punjab Quaid-e-Azam Road Multan but the said cheque, when presented in the bank, bounced.
2. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Multan after calling for a report of local police dismissed the said petition vide order dated 27-8-2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the said order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the contents of the application spelt out the commission of a cognizable offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Therefore, the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace had no alternative except to order for the registration of -a case.
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has maintained that in fact the petitioner had filed two applications under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For the registration of cases on 18-8-2011 but in his present writ petition he has concealed the filing of the other application by him under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Because a different story was given in the other petition to the effect that Abdul Sattar respondent No.5 had obtained the disputed amount from him by way of loan for which he had given the cheque in question. That in fact one Muhammad Saleem was a Sales Manager appointed by respondent No.5 who had embezzled some amounts hence he was removed from the service and the said Muhammad Saleem had stolen away various cheques and thereafter he had threatened that he would get criminal cases lodged on the basis of stolen cheques. That F.I.R.
No.11 of 2011 was lodged against Muhammad Saleem and the present petitioner Sibtain Raza under sections 381/408, P.P.C. At Police Station Gadai District D.G. Khan as Sibtain Raza had also threatened to lodge criminal cases on the basis of the stolen cheques.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the above said F.I.R. No.11 of 2011 was registered on 30-7-2011 against Muhammad Saleem and the petitioner Sibtain Raza under section 381/408 P.P.C. At. Police Station Gadai District D.G. Khan. The filing of two separate petitions on the same day by the petitioner for the registration of cases against respondent No.5 one titled `Syed. Sibtain Raza v. S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. Multan and four others' and the other titl'-'l `Syed Sibtain Raza v. S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. Multan and another' is also admitted by the petitioner's side. It is also not denied that in the petition titled `Syed Sibtain Raza v. S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. Multan and another' the petitioner had mentioned that amount of Rs.3,75,00,000 was due against Abdul Sattar respondent No.5 on account of `Phutti' supplied by the .Petitioner to him but in his other application titled `Syed Sibtain Raza v. S.H.O. Police Station Cantt. Multan and four others' the petitioner had claimed that respondent No.5 had been borrowing various amounts from him from time to time and the total loan amount came to Rs.3,75,00,000 against which the cheque in question was issued by respondent No.5. Learned Ex- Office Justice of Peace took note of the said contradictory stands and after considering the report of the local police dismissed the petitioner's application. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had no alternative except to order for the registration of a case because the contents of the petition made out the commission of a cognizable offence, it has been held in Muhammad Mushtaq v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and others (2003 YLR 2301) the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace before whom an application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Is moved seeking a direction to the S.H.O. Concerned for registration of a case is not expected and required to allow the request of the complainant mechanically, blindly and without application of legal mind and he is competent to examine the complaint obviously with full application of legal mind and is not supposed to accept and believe the averments of the complaint as gospel truth. It has been also held in Habibullah v. Political Assistant Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2008- SCMR 951) that the High Court was under no obligation to issue a direction for the registration of a case in each and every case irrespective of the facts and circumstances which could call for exercise of judicial restraint in turning down such requests in view of the conduct of the party, besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint was available to the complainant. It has been held in Rai Ashraf and others v.
Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others' (PLU 2010 Supreme Court 691) that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
7. In the circumstances of the case as mentioned supra, the impugned order of the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace does not call for any interference hence, the write petition is dismissed in limine.