' Through this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.8.2015, passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Respondent No. 1 whereby he dismissed the petition under Section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner Muhammad Mansha moved a petition under Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before Respondent No. 1/learned Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case against the Respondents No. 3 to 5 alleging therein that on 14.5.2012, Respondent No. 3 inclusion with Respondents No. 4 and 5 to prepare a forged and fictitious agreement to sell. A report was requisitioned from Respondent No. 2/ SHO Police Station Mitru, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari who filed the same on 21.6.2015, and the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after taking into consideration the said report dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner through impugned order dated 15.8.2015, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.8.2015 is against law and facts of the petitioner's case; that Respondent No. 3-Allah Ditta filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner-Muhammad Mansha on the basis of forged agreement to sell dated 14.5.2012 and that no doubt civil and criminal proceedings can proceed side by side but ultimately matter is to be decided by the Civil Court and till that time the criminal proceedings are required to be stayed. Whether any forgery was committed or not in respect of the execution in which the civil suit is pending. He further submits that from bare reading of the said application cognizable offence is made out, therefore, keeping in view the ingredients of Section 154, Cr.P.C. An FIR. Be ordered to be registered against Respondents No. 3 to 5.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. Supported the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and submitted that no infirmity or perversity is pointed out in the said order.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.G. And have also gone through the record annexed with this petition. In the report submitted by the SHO PS Mitru, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, it has been specifically pointed out by him that occurrence to the extent of altercation and misbehavior took place between the parties and so far as the constitution of cognizable office is concerned, the story of the petitioner is doubtful to the extent of said respondents. Therefore, I am of the view that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Respondent No. 1 has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him through judicial mind and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by him while passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace does not call for any interference by this Court, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any force however, the petitioner may file private complaint against the said respondents under Section 200 of the of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if so advised, in the light of case titled as "Roy Ashraf and others" versus Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 691).