' This petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2016, whereby; the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal disposed of the application filed under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., by Respondent No, 3, with the direction to appear before the SHO concerned, who was also directed to record version of Respondent No, 3 and then to proceed further as per law.
2. In pursuance of the direction passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Respondent No, 1, a report has been submitted by Respondent No, 2/S.H.0 wherein he categorically denied the allegations.
3. Heard, record perused.
4. Respondent No, 3, Shahidur Rehman, moved an application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.
Before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of case against the petitioner and others on the basis of allegations that he is resident of Mouza Siraj Adda, Narowal and runs poultry farm business. Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Arif used to do business of poultry with him and about Rs, 306000/- were outstanding towards above proposed accused. On 30.10.2015 at about 05:00 a.m., in presence of witnesses, Respondent No, 3 demanded his money from the proposed accused on which they promised to return the same within seven days. Later on the petitioner demanded the money from the proposed accused, but they refused to return the same and started abusing and threatening the petitioner. Whereupon, the learned Ex-Officio justice of Peace disposed of the matter on 7.1.2016 by directing to SHO concerned to record the version of Respondent No, 3 and to proceed strictly as per law.
5. It has been stated in parawise comments that the petitioner got lodged a criminal case FIR No, 218/2015, dated 23.12.2015 under Section 382, PPC, at Police Station Niddokay against Respondent No, 3 and four others. Meaning thereby, Respondent No, 3 has obtained the impugned order dated 7.01.2016 in counterblast and revenge.
6. If respondent party itself is encouraged to prosecute the Police on the one hand, and the Justice of Peace without applying his mind passed a mechanical order, on the other hand, by not even considering the Police Report, it would encourage the trend already in vogue to manage to get an order against the petitioner. Such course of action would eventually erode the system to the verge of collapse. By that as it may even otherwise, Respondent No, 3 did not approach the Court with clean hands and apparently had withheld and concealed the material facts.
7. It has been held in "Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and others" (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) that 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 report as "Khalid Anwar v. Ex Officio Justice of Peace Lahore and 3 others" (2013 PCr.L.J 684) and "Mureed Hussain v.
Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Jampur and 3 others" (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1146).
8. Furthermore, matter regarding recovery of outstanding amount is in question, which involves factual controversy and the same cannot be called in question before this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. Guidance is sought from the case titled "Messrs Ahmad Developers v. Muhammad Saleh and others" (2010 SCMR 1057).
9. For the above- mentioned reasons, it is a fit case for interference and invalidation of the impugned order. Therefore, by allowing this petition, impugned order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Narowal is set-aside.
(R.A.) .