Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Case No. Writ Petition No. 3527 of 2020.

Shumaila Amjad Versus Addl. Sessions Judge and

others

Sr. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or
proceeding proceeding counsel, where necessary.

23.01.2020 Mr. Muhammad Sohail Dar, Advocate for the

petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Sabri, Assistant Advocate
General on Court’s call.

By filing this petition in terms of Article 199 of the

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the
Constitution), Shumaila Amjad, petitioner has assailed the
legality and propriety of order dated 6.1.2020 passed by learned
ex-officio Justice of the Peace/Additional Sessions Judge,
Lahore, operative part of which reads as under:

“There is no reason to discard the report of

the Senior Police Officer, in a thorough
probe made by the police petitioner fails to
substantiate her cause, therefore, the instant
petition does not disclose any cognizable
offence. The factum of giving amount as a
trust/Amanat is not proved. Therefore, I lay
my hands off to pass any desired direction for
registration of criminal case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

contents of application in terms of Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C.
submitted by the petitioner before ex-officio Justice of the
Peace seeking direction for registration of criminal case
disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, as such it was
obligation of the ex-officio Justice of the Peace to issue
Writ Petition No.3527 of 2020. 2

direction for registration of case but relying on fake report

submitted by the police, application of the petitioner was
dismissed.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Perusal of impugned order evinces that on application

of the petitioner, ex-officio Justice of the Peace sought report
from the police and after perusal of report so made by senior
police officer after thorough probe, came to conclusion that in
the present case ‘entrustment of property’ was not proved which
was basic ingredient so as to constitute an offence as defined in
Section 405 P.P.C. punishable under Section 406 P.P.C. as the
amount was given to the proposed accused/respondent No. 5 for
running business. If this be so, then the amount was handed
over by the petitioner to the proposed accused for investment in
business and not as entrustment. In the circumstances, learned
ex-officio Justice of the Peace has rightly exercised the
jurisdiction while dismissing the application of the petitioner.
Steering thought in this regard has been gathered from the case
“Hashmat Ullah v. The State and others” (2019 SCMR 1730).
Even otherwise powers under Section 22-A(6) of the Cr.P.C.
are discretionary and not mandatory in nature. It is discretion of
ex-officio Justice of the Peace if in his estimation a cognizable
offence has been committed, then he may issue direction for
registration of a criminal case but he cannot be made bound to
pass such direction. The law expects him to apply judicious
conscious while passing such order and not to pass stereo style
orders in haste. The impugned order does not warrant any
interference by this Court while exercising constitutional
jurisdiction. As such the instant writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed in limine.

5. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may avail

alternate remedy by filing private complaint before the learned
 Writ Petition No.3527 of 2020. 3

Magistrate, who will proceed with the same in accordance with

law without influenced by the order impugned herein or any
observation of this Court.

(Mujahid Mustaqeem Ahmed)

Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING:

JUDGE
Qurban