Through this petition filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges the order dated 09.02.2019 passed by the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Kabirwala, whereby the application filed under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. by Respondent No. 3 was disposed of with the direction to the Station House Of ficer concerned to register a case after recording his statement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at some length. The crux of the arguments was that no cognizable offence was made out and that the police report, supporting his version, could not have been ;kept out of consideration. To augment his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon "Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others" ( PLD 2005 Lahore 470 ).
3. Learned law of ficer opposed this petition and supported the order rendered by the Respondent No. 1.
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. A review of the record demonstrates that the Respondent No. 3 filed an applica tion under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. on 29.01.2019 and levelled the allegation against the proposed accused in Para No. 2 of the petition. The learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace requisitioned a report from the local police which is available on record and suggested that the application filed by the Respondent No. 3 was frivolous and baseless. In para No. 5 of the impugned order , the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace dealt with the merits of the case and observed that the Station House Officer concerned has, not denied the missing of the daughter of the Respondent No. 3. I have gone through the report submitted by the Zafar Iqbal A.S.I. of Police Station City Kabirwala and it was not a report of Station House Officer rather forwarded by the Station House Officer which indicates that the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace dealt with the matter in a cursory/slipshod manner . The scope of the comments/report submitted by the police came under consideration before 'their lordships in the case of "Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others" (PLD 2005 Lahore 470), wherein at page No. 534-535 in para No. 16, their lordships observed as under: ".--It is prudent and advisable for an. Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to call for comments of the officer Incharge of the relevant Police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that he may be apprised of the reasons why the local police has not registered a criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. It may well be that the complainant has been economizing with the truth and the comments of the local police may help in completing the picture and making the situation clearer for the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace facilitating him in issuing a just and con eel direction, if any .
The officer in charge of the relevant Police Station may be under a statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. whenever information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is provide d to him but the provisions of Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. do not make it obligatory for an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to necessarily or blindfoldedly issue a direction regarding registration of a criminal case whenever a complaint is filed before him in that regard. An Ex-Officio Justice of Peace should exercise caution and restraint in this regard and he may call for comments ofthe officer at-charge the relevant. Police Station in respect of complaints of this nature before taking any decision of his own in that regard so that he may be apprised of the reasons why the local police have not registered, a, criminal case in respect of the complainant's allegations. If the comments furnished by the office incharge of the relevant Police Station disclose no justifiable reason for not registering a criminal case on the basis of the information supplied by the complaining person then an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace would be justified in issuing a direction that a criminal case be registered and investigated.
6. Seeking guidance from the observations, I am of the view that it is a fit case wherein interference is called for
7. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.02.2019 is set-aside. Resultantly , application filed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 22-A, Cr . .P.C. stands dismissed.