Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the learned Justice of Peace, Burewala whereby on the application filed by the Respondent No, 3, learned Justice of Peace ordered the SHO to record the version of the Respondent No,
3. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No, 3 filed application u/S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. alleging therein that on 14.8.2015, Ishfaq, Respondent No, 4 along with his son Allah Rakha went for watering the land because he needed help of Allah Rakha for that and then went to Khasra No, 59/2 at some distance of village where accused Sarfraz, Ali Raza (petitioner) and Sajjad armed with sootas were already present and then they started to beat Allah Rakha with their sootas. Wnen he became senseless, Ali Raza strangulated him on which he died. The occurrence was witnessed by Mirza and Muhammad Jan Sher while passing near the place of occurrence on motorcycle and identified the accused. The motive behind that occurrence was that Ali Raza suspected that Allah Rakha created ilicit relations with his sister.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the contents of the application filed by Respondent No, 3 under Section 22A, Cr.P.C. commission of cognizable offence was not made out, yet the learned Justice of Peace illegally and wrongly issued direction for the registration of case against the petitioner. Further contended that the application dated 26.8.2015 filed by Respondent No, 3 for disinterment of the dead body of Allah Rakha shows that he was not the eye-witness of the occurrence and that when already F.I.R has been registered, therefore, there is no need for registration of second F.I.R. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon 2014 P.Cr.LJ 1146 to argue that Ex-officio Justice of Peace was not bound to seek report from the police at every cost and he, was fully competent to decide the application and pass an order, even without any report by the police. However when a report was called, to know the truth and real facts, then the same should not be, ignored. Where Ex-Officio Justice of Peace did not agree with the police report, then he should give reasons for doing so. Seeking and obtaining a police report but subsequently ignoring the same and passing an order contrary to it, ''without assigning any reason could not be appreciated.
3. On the other hand learned A.A.G assisted by the learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 opposed this petition and argued that registration of second F.I.R. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon PLD 2005 SC 297.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the matter requires factual inquiry which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. However, SHO/ Respondent No, 2 is directed to hear both the parties, record their respective versions, receive oral as well as documentary evidence, then proceed with the case impartially and strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the learned Justice of Peace, Burewala. With this direction, this petition stands disposed of.