--Petitioner has called in question order--Whereby petition filed by Respondent No. 3 under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C for registration of the FIR against petitioner was accepted-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 47

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----Ss. 22-A & 22-B--Art. 199 of Constitution, 1973--Registration of criminal case--Cognizable offence--Petitioner has called in question order--Whereby petition filed by Respondent No. 3 under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C for registration of the FIR against petitioner was accepted--Commission of cognizable offence was made out--No illegality or infirmity in impugned order passed by Justice of peace--Petition dismissed. [Para 1, 2 & 5] A, B & C

Mr. Shehbaz Ali Khan Gurmani, Advocate for Petitioner.

Syed Imran Abbas Kazmi, Advocate for Respondents.

Merh Nazar Abbas Chawan, AAG for State.

Date of hearing: 9.3.2016.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 47
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Aslam Javed Minhas, J.
MUHAMMAD RASHID--Petitioner
versus
EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE DISTRICT MUZAFFAR GARH and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 5058 of 2015, decided on 9.3.2016.

Order

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 04.04.2015 whereby the petition filed by Respondent No. 3 under Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R against the petitioner was accepted by learned Justice of Peace Muzaffargarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the contents of the application filed by the Respondent No. 3 no commission of cognizable offence was made out yet the learned Justice of Peace illegally and wrongly accepted the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. He further contended that the story of petition filed by Respondent No. 3 is pre-planned, as in earlier portion of the petition, petitioner mentioned that he with co-accused came on foot but in the end he mentioned that they were fled away by motorbike, but learned Justice of Peace without considering the aspect of the case passed impugned order dated 04.04.2016, which being illegal and unlawful is liable to be set-aside.

3. On the other hand, learned A.A.G with the assistance of learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has vehemently opposed this petition and supported the impugned order of the learned Justice of Peace.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned AAG and perused the record as well as impugned order passed by the learned Justice of Peace.

5. I do not feel hesitation in endorsing the view taken by the learned Justice of Peace and see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.05.2014 passed by learned Justice of Peace Multan, therefore, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed.

(K.Q.B.)          Petition dismissed