This petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2013 whereby the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Pakpatan accepted the application filed under section 22-A 22-B Cr.P.C, submitted by the respondent No. 2 Mst Sakina Bibi alleging therein that the SHO Police Station Dera Rahim and others while trespassing into her house had robbed her by forcibly taking away cattle valuing Rs.900,000/- motorcycles, 17 chickens, gold ornaments weighing two 'tolas' and clothes.
2. In pursuance of the direction passed by the Ex Officio Justice of Peace/respondent No.2, a report was submitted by the Station House Officer. In his report and comments the concerned Station House Officer Police Station Dal Waryam, Pakpattan/respondent No.3, categorically denied either to have conducted any raid or to have stolen any articles from the house of Mst.Sakina Bibi. He further submitted that in connection with the arrest of one Ejaz alias Ejazi, a wanted criminal in a number of cases, the police functionaries of Police Station Dera Rahim did conduct a raid, and in that regard, entry No.19 was also incorporated in the Roznamcha of Police Station Dalwaryam. However, the above mentioned wanted criminal could not be apprehended. He also submitted that in the course of inquiry conducted by the District Police Officer Sahiwal, it transpired that the police had conducted a legal raid to arrest the afore mentioned hardened criminal with two unknown persons and during the raid the said criminals succeeded to escape, leaving the stolen property behind.
The said stolen property was taken into possession by the Police under section 550 Cr.P.C. The inquiry report of the DPO Sahiwal confirmed that the police did not conduct any raid on the house of Mst.Sakina Bibi and that the accusations of trespass and dacoity were also found to be baseless.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and summarily without appreciating the fact that petition under Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C was filed in a malicious and mala fide manner by the respondent No.2 Mst. Sakina Bibi, with the ulterior motive to save the skin of some of her close relatives nominated in a number of criminal cases. Further argued that no documentary evidence was available or brought on record on behalf of Mst.Sakina Bibi in order to establish any nexus or title with the articles alleged to have been stolen by the police in the course of the raid conducted by them. Learned counsel adds that had the assertions of trespass and dacoity been true, the same would have been substantiated through some tangible and credible evidence.
4. Both the learned AAG and the counsel for the respondent No.2 have supported the impugned order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
5. In pursuance of this Court's directions, respondent No.3 SHO Police Station Dal Waryam, District Pakpattan has filed a report and parawise comments to this Writ Petition.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Respondent No.2, Mst Sakina Bibi, in her application filed under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C has withheld and concealed the true facts apparently with a view to get a favorable order in her favour.
The Ex Officio Justice of Peace seized of the matter called for the Police report, but did not rely on the same and while brushing aside the same did not advance any cogent reasons. In the Police report it is clearly stated that the respondent No.2 Mst Sakina Bibi had moved the application before the Justice of Peace against the Police functionaries with mala fide intentions so as to dissuade and pressurize the Police not to lay its hands on her real nephew Ejaz @ Ejazy, against whom several FIRs have been registered, the list whereof has been appended with the police report. In the report and parawise comments before this Court, it is clearly stated therein that even the son of respondent No.2, namely Noor Samand is implicated in a number of criminal cases and is wanted by the Police as well.
8. The contention of the Petitioner who is a Police official that the application preferred on behalf of respondent No.2 is false and concocted. And in fact, it was actuated as a counter blast to the cases registered against the close relatives of respondent No.2, viz, her son and nephew, should not have been ignored by the Justice of Peace. If the family members of the accused persons or the accused persons themselves are encouraged to prosecute the Police on the one hand, and the Justice of Peace without applying his mind passes a mechanical order on the other hand by not even considering the Police Report, would encourage the trend already in vogue to manage to get an order against the Police Officers. Such course of action would eventually erode the system to the verge of collapse. Be that as it may, even otherwise, respondent No.2 did not approach the Court with clean hands and apparently had withheld and concealed the material facts.
9. In the case reported as PLD 2005 Lahore 470 Khizer Hayat and others vs Inspector General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and others', it was emphasized that it was advisable for the Justice of Peace to call for the Police Report. The sole object of this mechanism is to bring the true facts on record.
Though it was not obligatory for the Justice of Peace to call for the Police Report, but once the Police Report is called for, the Justice of Peace cannot ordinarily brush it aside. And in case the Justice of Peace proposes to pass an order contrary to the Police Report, then he is supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon the solicited Police Report. Dictum of law as laid down by the aforesaid authoritative and celebrated judgment was followed in the cases reported as 2013 P.Cr.L.J 684 Khalid Anwar Vs Ex Officio Justice of Peace Lahore and 3 others and 2014 P.Cr.L.J 1146 Mureed Hussain Vs Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Jampur and 3 others.
10. For the above mentioned facts and reasons, it is a fit case for interference and invalidation of the impugned order. Consequently, by allowing this Writ Petition, impugned order dated 21-12-2013 passed by Ex Officio Justice of Peace Pakpattan is set aside. If respondent No.2 has any further grievance (s), she would be at liberty to avail the alternate remedy under the law at the appropriate forum.