' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-7-2013, passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (respondent No.1), whereby in an application moved by respondent No.4, for registration of a criminal case against the present petitioner, a direction to the SHO has been made that he should record statement of the respondent No.4, under section 154 of Cr.P.C.. And perform the statutory duties.
2. It has been observed tnat abovementioned application has been made with the contention that Mumtaz Ahmad son of respondent No.4 was serving with the present petitioner but due salary was not paid to him; that when the son of the respondent No.4 demanded his salary, the petitioner levelled false allegations of committing theft, from, his petrol pump and expelled the son of respondent No.4, from the employment; that Sajjad Ahmad another son of respondent No.4 returned home, but Mumtaz Ahmad did not come; that when despite lapse of four days, Mumtaz Ahmad, son of respondent No.4 did not return home, he was worried and started searching and when contacted the present petitioner, he made threats of dire consequences and that the above- named was confined by the present petitioner.
3. It has been noticed that when the matter in shape of the above-mentioned application came before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, a report was sought from the concerned police station, which was made and filed. According to the report, the sons of respondent No.4 namely Sajjad Ahmad and Mumtaz Ahmad, were involved in case F.I.R. No.268 dated 20-7-2013, registered under section 381, P.P.C. At Police Station, Muhammad Pur who did not join into investigation and that the respondent No.4 while concocting a false story had filed the abovementioned application.
4. It has been found that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has failed to give any weight to the above-mentioned report, made by the A police or eve; discuss it and preferred to pass the impugned order.
5. The purpose of the report/comments from the police has been described in detail in the case titled "Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and others", reported as (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) in the following terms:- "It is prudent and advisable for an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to call for comments of the officer incharge 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 has not registered a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. It may well be that the complainant has been economizing with the truth and the comments of the local police may help in completing the picture and making the situation clearer for the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace facilitating him in issuing a just and correct direction, if any. "
"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 incharge 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 office incharge 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."
6. The above-mentioned dictum clearly indicates importance of the report of the police, so that real facts, should come on the record, but in the matter in hand, as stated above, the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, although has sought report from the police but despite its availability on the record, has ignored it and failed to give any reason for not believing the same.
7. An Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not bound to seek report from the police at every cost and he is fully competent to decide the application and pass an order, even without any report by the police.
But when a report is called, to know the truth and real, facts, as per the above-mentioned dictum, then it should not be ignored. If Ex-Officio Justice of Peace does not agree with the report, then should give the reasons. Seeking and obtaining a police report but ignoring and passing an order, contrary to it, without assigning any reason could not be appreciated. Special care to this situation is required.
8. The record shows that on 25-6-2013, Mumtaz Ahmad, the alleged abductee was available before the learned Magistrate Section-30, Jampur, in case No.464 dated 27-9-2009, registered under sections 324, 381-A, 148/149 of P.P.C. At Police Station, Fazilpur. Therefore, the application moved by the respondent No.4, before the DPO Rajanpur on 27-6-2013 that his above-named son was kept in illegal confinement by the petitioner for last for 3/4 days, has been found to be not true.
9. It has further been noticed that Mumtaz Ahmad, was involved in case F.I.R. No.268 dated 20-7- 2013 registered under section 381 of P.P.C. At Police Station, Muhammad Pur, District Rajanpur on the complaint of the present petitioner towards commission of the theft at his petrol pump. Therefore, possibility of moving above-mentioned application for registration of the case while concocting false story and to get rid of the above-mentioned criminal case could not be ruled out.
10. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the application for registration of the case is dismissed.
11. Despite of the abovementioned, the respondent No.4, if so advised, shall have the remedy of filing a private complaint, according to the dictum laid down in the cases reported as KHIZER HAYAT and others v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (PUNJAB), LAHORE and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) and RAI ASHRAF and others v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI and others (PLD 2010 SC 691).