This constitutional petition is directed against order dated 18-9-2019 passed by the learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. stating that in the year 2016 she sold her house measuring 21/2 marlas to the Petitioner in consideration of Rs.
13,00,000!- out of which the Petitioner paid Rs. 400,000/- in cash and for the remaining sum issued her three cheques. Out of them two were encashed while Cheque No. 10113361 for Rs. 200,000/- was dishonoured.
Respondent No. 3 contended that the Petitioner had committed a cognizable offence and prayed that a direction be issued to the Respondent SHO for registration of FIR against him. The said application was accepted by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace vide impugned order dated 18.9.2019. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 had filed the aforementioned application before the learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace on the basis of a false and concocted story . Cheque No. 10113361 was without consideration. As such, the provisions of Section 489-F PPC were not attracted. The impugned order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order . They prayed that the instant petition be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, Cheque No. 10113361 has been dishonoured. The Petitioner has neither denied his signature on the said cheque nor has controverted the fact that he issued it to Respondent No. 3. Prima facie, the provisions of Section 489-F, PPC are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case and registration of FIR is called for.
Reliance is placed on "MADAWA through President v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and 15 others" (PLD 2013 Lah. 442).
7. The impugned order dated 18.9.2019 is based on cogent cement reasons. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to persuade this Court that it suffers from any legal infirmity. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Nevertheless, the Respondent SHO is directed to ensure that during the investigation the Petitioner is provided full opportunity to prove whatever plea he takes in his defence.