' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---This Intra-court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, has been filed by Amjad Shakoor against the order dated 15-11-2011 passed by leaned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court in Writ Petition No,25261-2011, whereby the. Said writ petition has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Amjad Shakoor lodged an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Sialkot, seeking a direction to the SHO, Police Station Hajipura Sialkot, for registration of a case against Muhammad Shahid alleging that he got a car Suzuki Liana bearing Registration No,LEC-07- 7281 Chassis No,207013, Engine No,H208361 on lease through instalments from MCB Bank Peras Road Silakot, which he entrusted to Muhammad Shahid; that when Muhammad Shahid brought the said car back the same was badly damaged in an accident, resultantly, he refused to receive the same, however, respectable of the locality get effected a compromise between the parties and it was agreed that Muhammad Shahid will retain the car and pay the remaining instalments to the bank; that Muhammad Shahid instead of paying the instalments to the bank misappropriated the car, thus, he lodged an F.I.R. No,262 of 2009 under section 406, P.P.C. At Police Station Hajipura against him wherein he was found guilty during police investigation and accordingly challaned; that in the meanwhile Muhammad Shahid sold out the car to some other person by preparing the forged documents; that he lodged an application to the police but of no avail.
3. After obtaining report from SHO concerned and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace reaching the conclusion that the petitioner has already lodged an F.I.R. Against the accused/respondent in respect of misappropriation of the car in question, dismissed the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 16-9-2011 with a direction to the petitioner that he may raise his contention before the I.O. During investigation.
4. Amjad Shakoor appellant being dissatisfied with the order dated 16-9-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, assailed the same through writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution on the grounds that the SHO, respondent No,2 was duty bound to record his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. And that the learned Justice of Peace had only to see whether cognizable offence is made out from the plain reading of the application; that the impugned order dated 16-9-2011 passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not sustainable in the eye of law which may be set aside and a direction be made to the SHO/Police Authorities to register a case against Muhammad Shahid in accordance with law.
5. The learned Single Judge in Chambers through the impugned order dated 15-11-2011 dismissed the same taking reliance upon the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the case reported as Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC 691), wherein it has been held that when the alternate remedy of filing a private complaint is available the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
6. This I.C.A. Against the order dated 15-11-2011 is lodged on the grounds that the learned Single Judge has over looked the fact that the previous F.I.R. No,262 of 2009 related to a different offence was investigated by the police and challan has been sent up whereas contents of later petition under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Revealed commission of a different offence; that learned Single Judge in Chambers has also ignored the mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. That whenever an occurrence constituting a cognizable offence is reported to the police the police officer is bound to register the case. Further submits that as per various pronouncements of the Superior Courts availability of alternate remedy does not bar the filing of the. Constitutional petition if the alternate remedy is not efficacious.
7. We have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.
8. With reference to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is pertinent to mention that the Superior Courts in Pakistan have travelled a long way in developing and interpreting the law of procedure vis-a-vis role and functions of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in respect of the complaints regarding failure of the police to register a case. A Full Bench Judgment of this Court in this regard is the case of Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470). An extract from the conclusion of the above said judgment is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- "35 (ix) Complaints regarding failure of the police to register a criminal case: The officer in charge of the relevant Police Station may be under a statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. Whenever information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is provided to him but the provisions of section 22-A (6), Cr.P.C. Do not make it obligatory for an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to necessarily or blindfoldedly issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case whenever a complaint is filed before him in that regard. An Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace should exercise caution and restraint in this regard and he may call for comments of the officer in charge of the relevant Police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that he may be apprised of the reasons why the local police have not registered a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations . If the comments furnished by the officer in charge of the relevant Police Station disclose no justifiable reason for not registering a criminal case on the basis of the information supplied by the complaining person then an Ex- Officio Justice of the Peace would be justified in issuing a direction that a criminal case be registered and investigated. It is not obligatory for the officer in charge of a Police Station or for an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused party' before registration of a criminal case or before issuing a direction in that regard. In an appropriate case, depending upon the circumstances thereof, an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace may refuse to issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case and may dismiss the complaint under section 22-A (6), Cr. P. C. Reminding the complaining person of his alternate statutory remedies under sections 156(3) and 190, Cr. P. C. The impression entertained by a large section of the legal community in our country that in case of filing private complaint the accused person cannot be arrested and recovery cannot be affected from him is nothing but erroneous and fallacious."
9. It is also noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest case of Rai Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC 691) while discussing vires of sections 22-A and 22-B, 154 and 200, Cr.P.C., read with Article 199 of the Constitution maintained that besides registration of case with the police alternate adequate remedy to file private complaint before the competent court is also available in law.
10. Needless to mention that in terms of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace may issue appropriate directions to Police Authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case. There is no cavil to the proposition that the word 'may' used in the above quoted provision confers discretionary power upon Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace in this regard. No doubt learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace is obliged to exercise powers vested in him under the law in a judicious manner, with application of mind taking into consideration the facts and material of the case.
11. In the instant case the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after procuring the report of the SHO and reaching the conclusion that since a case with regard to alleged misappropriation of the said car has already been registered, rightly declined the petition under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C.
For registration of another case. Besides it is pertinent to mention that alternate remedy of private complaint in terms of section 200, Cr.P.C. Is also available to the appellant if so solicited. The words 'adequate' and 'efficacious' usually used to evaluate the alternate remedy no doubt bear an importance. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines the word 'adequate' as 'enough in quantity or good enough in quality for a particular purpose or need'. Simultaneously, the word 'efficacious' means 'producing or certain to produce the intended result'. The scheme of legislation in both the above-referred provisions of procedure clearly manifests a complete mechanism to redress the grievance of the complainant in accordance with law.
12. For the above discussion and reasons, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court has over looked the relevant provisions of law is devoid of any force. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders.
As a sequel to the above, this I.C.A. Is dismissed in limine.
I.C.A. Dismissed.