' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this constitutional petition, Muhammad Sarwar-petitioner prays for setting aside order dated 5-9-2013 passed by respondent No,1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Arifwala (Pakpattan Shari, whereby he while disposing of the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. Moved by Abdul Rehman (respondent No,4) directed the respondent-S.H.O. To register an F.I.R. On the complaint of respondent No,4.
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner purchased 2100 litres of diesel and 100 litres of petrol from respondent No,4, Business Development Officer in AGRO Centre, Qabula Road, Arifwala, and issued two cheques to him for Rs,2,28,060 and Rs,1,12,200, respectively, as cost thereof, which, on presentation, were bounced by the drawee bank due to lack of funds; respondent No,4 contacted the petitioner for payment of the aforesaid amount, but he refused to do so, which prompted him to approach the respondent-S.H.O. For registration of a case, but to no avail; respondent No,4, lastly, filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Arifwala (Pakpattan Sharif), seeking for issuance of a direction qua registration of a criminal case against Muhammad Sarwar (petitioner), where on the impugned order was passed.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the Ex- Officio Justice of Peace (respondent No,1) has concluded that the petitioner, prima facie, committed a cognizable offence and thus, rightly issued a direction to the respondent-S.H.O. To register a criminal case against him. The main argument of the learned counsel that the cheques in question were issued by the petitioner as a token of guarantee to one Muhammad Imran (not a respondent herein) against whom he had filed a suit for rendition of accounts and it was he who conspiratorially delivered the said instruments to the respondent-complainant, is not corroborated by any material whatsoever. Even in the noted suit, which was filed earlier to the date of passing of the impugned order or filing of the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. By respondent No,4, does not contain the said fact. The name of respondent No,4 (Abdul Rehman), however, does not figure in the said suit, as a defendant. No factual inquiry as to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel can be conducted in this constitutional petition.
The impugned order is within the parameters of section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. When a cognizable offence is reported by a person, the S.H.O. Of the concerned police station is bound to register F.I.R. Under the mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. It has been held on several occasions by the apex court as well as by court statutory that the police are under section 154, Cr.P.C: to register a case, where a cognizable offence appears to have been committed and they are statutorily bound to investigate a cognizable offence. Reference in this regard may advantageously be made to. The Jamal Khan's case, reported as PLD 2009 SC 102 and Muhammad Bashir's case, reported as PLD 2007 SC 539. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to hint at an illegality in the impugned order. No defect is found by this court in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order.
4. For the reasons recorded supra, I find no force in this petition, which is dismissed.