Through this constitutional petition, Muhammad Riaz petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Ferozewala, whereby , upon, an application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. submitted by Mst. Sardaran Bibi (Respondent No. 3) a direction was issued to S.H.O Police Station Factory Area District Sheikhupura to record the statement of Respondent No. 3 and to proceed further as per law .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the contents of application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. 'submitted by Mst. Sardaran Bibi Respondent No. 3 before the learned Justice of Peace, commission of cognizable offence was not made out against the petitioner and other police officials that in fact Mst. Sardaran Bibi and her other family members were not enjoying good reputation in the vicinity and police conducted raid in order to effect the arrest of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi daughter of Respondent No 3 in case FIR Nos. 938/2012 and 953/2012; that Respondent No. 3 submitted application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the petitioner and other police officials just to avoid the arrest of her daughter Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi in the aforementioned cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon case laws reported as Muhammad Umar Tarar vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 YLR 1187 Lahore), Muhammad Waris vs. D.P.O and others (2012 YLR Lahore), Muhammad Yameen vs. Abdul Sattar Narejo and others (2012 SCMR 101) and Safdar Hussain vs. Ex-Of ficio Justice, of Peace and 2 others (2012 MLD 1150 Lahore) prayed that by accepting this petition impugned order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Justice of Peace Ferozewala is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned AAG present on Court's call contended that from the contents of application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. submitted by Respondent No. 3 before the learned Justice of Peace commission of cognizable offence was made out, therefore, there was no illegality in the impugned order .
4. It have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and perused the available record with care.
5. It has been noticed that from the contents of application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. submitted by Respondent No. 3 before the learned Justice of Peace commission of cognizable offence was made out as there was specific allegation against the petitioner Muhammad Riaz that he forcibly snatched an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and two mobile phones from the daughter of Respondent No. 3, It has further been alleged in the said application that accused persons criminally trespassed in the house of Respondent No, 3 and inflicted injuries on the persons of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi (Respondent No. 3) and her daughter Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that infact police conducted raid at the house of Respondent No. 3 in order to effect the arrest of her daughter Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi in the aforementioned criminal cases, therefore, application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. had been filed by Respondent No. 3 before the learned Justice of Peace on wrong facts is a matter which could be thrashed out during investigation after registration of FIR. The case laws referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts-and circumstances of instant case.
6. For what has been discussed above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Justice of Peace Ferozewala calling for interference by this Court, therefore, instant petition stands dismissed in limine.