' Through this Constitutional petition, filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.04.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Multan, on the application of Respondent No. 4 Muhammad Kashif son of Muhammad Bakhsh in terms of Section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier two FIRs stand registered against the Respondent No. 4 one at Police Station Muzaffarabad vide FIR No. 44 dated 22.01.2014 and second at Police Station Qutab Pur vide FIR No. 54 dated 24.01.2014. Further submits that instant petition under Section 22-A/22-B had been moved by the Respondent No. 4 just in order to blackmail the petitioner and to refrain him from persuasion of FIR No. 44 of 2014 and a counter blast of the said FIR. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had passed the impugned order in the mechanical manner without taking into consideration the facts which had been concealed by Respondent No. 4 in his application moved in terms of Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.0 who vide his order dated 11.04.2014 directed 'that this is not denying fact at the part of local police that present petitioner has previously moved application furnishing information for happening of cognizable offence. So in the circumstances, the local police is, required to record the statement of petitioner and strictly proceed in accordance with law for redressal of grievance of the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 vehemently oppose the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that order impugned is well versed and well reasoned.
4. I have given serious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for Respondent No 4 and have also gone through the available record, with their able assistance.
5. From the perusal of order impugned, it reveals that only direction has been issued to Respondent No. 3 with the observation, "after hearing the arguments and going through the record, present Court find that this is not denying fact at the part of local police that present petitioner has previously moved application furnishing information for happening of cognizable offence. So in the circumstances, the local police is required to record the statement of petitioner and strictly proceed in accordance with law for redressal of grievance of the petitioner". The order impugned seems to be well versed and well reasoned, no illegality or infirmity in the same has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. However, further direction is issued to Investigating Officer to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law and submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within 10 days.
6. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.
(R.A.) .