' The appellant has assailed the vires of order dated 21-2-2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber, whereby Writ Petition No,2253 of 2012 filed by him was dismissed.
2. The appellant moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.O.P. Praying therein that S.H.O. Police Station City Rajanpur be directed to register a case against respondents Nos.4 to 7 as they were involved in commission of cognizable offence. It was contended that he had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and interim injunction was granted in his favour by the learned Civil Court. It was urged that on 30-4-2011 the respondents Nos.4 to 7 along with 7/8 un-known persons tried to take possession of the land per force and extended threats to kill. This petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.O.P. Vide order dated 17-5-2011 which was assailed through the above mentioned petition with the contention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.O.P. Had failed to perform his duties in accordance with law. It was prayed that appropriate writ be issued requiring the respondent No,3 to register the case.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under section 154, Cr.P.C. It was imperative for the respondent No,3 to reduce the information regarding commission of cognizable offence into writing but he failed to perform his duties in accordance with law so the appellant was constrained to move application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. Which was wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.O.P. It is urged that the learned Single Judge in Chamber also ignored the principles laid down by the apex. Court in PLD 2007 SC 539 (Muhammad Bashir v. S.H.O.) and 2006 SCM R 512 (Rafique Bibi v. Muhammad Sharif and others). It is urged that the learned Single Judge in Chamber erred in rectifying the illegality committed by the learned Additional Sessions judge/J.O.P. So the order is not sustainable.
4. Admittedly there is a dispute of civil nature regarding possession of the land forming subject matter of the suit for specific performance of the contract. If any injunction was violated the appellant had efficacious remedy in form of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3), C.P.C. The contents of the petition moved by the appellant reveal that according to him the respondent had beaten the tenants of the appellant and extended threats. No medical certificate was appended with the writ petition. The S.H.O. Concerned had reported that no cognizable offence was committed. In these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.O.P. Was fully justified in declining the prayer. The learned Single Judge in Chamber also for cogent reasons rightly held that there is factual controversy over the possession of the land, which cannot be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It appears that an attempt was made to culminate the dispute of civil nature into criminal proceedings. In case of suspicion regarding correctness of the contents of the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Justice of Peace can lawfully decline to issue direction for registration of the case. The learned Single Judge in Chamber rightly refused to interfere in order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/J.0.P. And rightly observed that the appellant has efficacious remedy in form of private complaint and may avail of the same, if so desired/advised. The reliance was also rightly placed on case-law reported as PLD 2010 SC 691 (Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others). The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable on the facts of the present appeal. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The I.C.A. Is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.