' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This petition filed in terms of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order dated 24.02.2014 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Faisalabad, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was accepted and SHO was directed to record his statement and proceed under section 154,.Cr.P.C.
2. In his application respondent No.2alleged that the petitioner while posing himself as owner of property bearing khasra No.19/4, Square No.48, situated in Chak No.279/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad sold said property to him for a total consideration of Rs.53 lacs and received Rs.50 lacs on different occasions. Qamar-ud-Din and Basit, other proposed accused, verified the ownership of the petitioner and assured that the property was free from encumbrances. However, after some time when it transpired that the property was pledged with Habib Bank Limited the petitioner with the intervention of respectable demanded return of the sale consideration but the petitioner put off the payment on one pretext or other. Subsequently when the suit of the Bank for recovery was decreed the petitioner promised to transfer the property in favour of respondent No.2 after clearance of bank liability. In the backdrop of above facts, the respondent had complained that the petitioner and other proposed accused had deprived him from huge amount by fraud.
3. After hearing the learned counselfor the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that allegedly the parties entered into an agreement for sale of disputed property on 04.02.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.53 lacs and out of which Rs.15 lacs was received by the petitioner as earnest money. However, the petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of said agreement on the ground that the same was forged and fabricated one. During the pendency of said suit the parties entered into another agreement and resultantly the suit was withdrawn by the .Petitioner on A 13.6.2013. In the meanwhile the Habib Bank Limited, with whom the disputed property was pledged, after securing decree against the petitioner filed execution petition and in execution proceedings respondent No.2 filed an application for deposit of decretal amount on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor, which application was allowed by the learned Banking Court and respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the decretal amount within seven days but he failed to do so. Respondent No.2 after his failure to deposit the decretal amount has tried to give colour of civil dispute into criminal one. From the resume of afore-noted facts it is clear that the no criminal liability is established against the petitioner. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order had not properly appreciated the afore- noted facts and in a mechanical manner had issued direction for registration of the case against the petitioner, which order is not sustainable in the eyes of law thus warrants interference of this court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, resulting into dismissal of the application of respondent No.2 filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.