Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.22591/2014
Mian Muhammad Khalid Versus S.H.O. Police Station Manawan,
Lahore, etc.
S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of
Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary.
13.01.2016 Mr. C.M Sarwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sittar Sahil, AAG with Muhammad Razzaq ASI.
Nemo for respondents No.2 to 5.
This petition is flagged hitting vires of the
order dated 25.07.2014, whereby; the Ex-Officio Justice
of Peace, Lahore disposed of the application diarized
under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C, by respondent No.2
leading the SHO concerned/respondent No.1 by nose to
record the version of respondent No.2 while proceeding
further strictly in accordance with law.
2. In pursuance of the direction tossed by the
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/respondent No.6, a report has
been tendered by respondent No.1/S.H.O. In his report
and comments, the concerned S.H.O categorically swept
the allegations.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has aired the impugned
order arbitrarily without diagnosing the fact that petition
under Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C was filed by respondent
No.2 in a malicious and mala fide manner. Further
argued that it was a civil dispute clothed by respondent
No.2 into criminal litigation.
4. Learned AAG has supported the impugned
order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. Respondent No.2, Mst. Saima Rani, in her
application filed under Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C has
 2
W.P. No.22591 of 2014.

withheld and concealed the true facts apparently with a

view to obtain a favourable order on her end. The learned
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace seized by the matter called
for a Police Report, but did not rely on the same, and did
not advance any cogent reasons while brushing aside the
same. In Police Report as well as parawise comments, it
is vividly stated that as a matter of fact, Mst. Saima
Shahzadi/respondent No.3 and Mst. Saima
Rani/respondent No.2 are wives of Muhammad Qasim
Hameed/respondent No.4, the real owner of the house,
who is living abroad.
7. The version of Mst. Saima Rani/respondent
No.2 is that she, being special attorney of her husband,
has sold out the house and received entire consideration
amount, and she wants to handover the possession after
vacating the house. Whereas, the version of Mst. Saima
Shahzadi/respondent No.3, the first wife of respondent
No.4, and the other members of locality is that she is
owner of the said house and Mst. Saima Rani/respondent
No.2 committed theft of her household articles.
8. As regards, Mian Muhammad Khalid/the
petitioner was present at the spot, however, the
allegations raised in the application were identified
incorrect. It is further pointed out that the petitioner
appeared before the police, whereas, the other side i.e.
respondents No.2 to 6 did not bother to appear before the
police in order to advance their version.
9. Perusal of record transpires that the
petitioner had also filed civil suit under Order XXXVII
Rule 2 CPC for recovery of amount against respondents
No.2 to 4, which is pending adjudication before the
learned civil court and the instant application filed by
 3
W.P. No.22591 of 2014.

respondent No.2 is just a counterblast of said suit.

Moreover, bare reading of contents of the application, it
transpires that there is a dispute regarding recovery of
amount involving factual controversy. It has been held in
“Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government
of N.W.F.P through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture,
Peshawar and others” (1993 SCMR 618) that where
factual controversies are involved, Constitutional
petition in the High Court is not the proper remedy. The
Justice of Peace without applying his mind passed a
mechanical order by not even considering the Police
Report, which would encourage the trend already in
vogue managing to get an order against the petitioner.
10. It has been held in “Khizer Hayat and others
v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and
others” (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) that it was emphasized
that it was advisable for the Justice of Peace to call for
the Police Report. The sole object of this mechanism is to
bring the true facts on record. Though it was not
obligatory for the Justice of Peace to call for the Police
Report, but once the Police Report is called for, the
Justice of Peace cannot ordinarily brush it aside. And, in
case the Justice of Peace who proposed to air an order
contrary to the Police Report, in addition, he was also
supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon
the solicited Police Report. Dictum of law as laid down
by the aforesaid authoritative and celebrated judgment
was followed in the cases report as “Khalid Anwar v. Ex
Officio Justice of Peace Lahore and 3 others” (2013
P.Cr.L.J 684) and “Mureed Hussain v. Additional
Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Jampur and 3 others”
(2014 P.Cr.L.J 1146).
 4
W.P. No.22591 of 2014.

11. For the above dissected reasons, it is a fit case for

interference and invalidation of the impugned order.
Therefore, by allowing this petition, impugned order
dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace, Lahore is set-aside.

(Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar)

Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge
I.R.Karimee*