Mian UMER IKRAM-UL-HAQ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and 15 others
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking the setting aside of an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was justified in dismissing the application for registration of a criminal case solely on the ground that a private complaint regarding the same occurrence had already been filed by the petitioner and was pending inquiry before a judicial forum. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had already availed an alternate remedy by filing a private complaint regarding the same occurrence, he could not simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the prior invocation of a judicial forum bars the issuance of a direction for registration of a criminal case.
- Whether the pendency of a private complaint regarding the same occurrence bars the registration of a criminal case through the Ex-officio Justice of Peace?
- Can a petitioner invoke the jurisdiction of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace after already availing the alternate remedy of filing a private complaint?
- Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this writ petition, petitioner Mian Umer Ikram-U1-Haq seeks setting aside of an order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Lahore whereby application of the petitioner under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of a criminal case against the proposed accused was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed, in a hasty manner without adverting to the actual facts of the case that the contents of application moved before the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace did disclose commission of a cognizable offence but the application has been dismissed merely on the ground of pendency of a private complaint regarding the same facts, however, the said private complaint has already been dismissed for want of prosecution; that even otherwise pendency of a private complaint regarding the similar occurrence does not create any bar upon registration of a criminal case, therefore, by setting aside the impugned order an appropriate direction may be issued to the SHO Police Station concerned.
3. On the other hand, learned law officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No,3 contends that the alleged occurrence mentioned in the application of the petitioner took place on 11.02.2014 whereas application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Was filed on 19.04.2014, however, private complaint regarding the same occurrence was filed prior to that i.e, 09.04.2014; that on the final date of hearing of application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. i.e, 03.06.2014 private compraint filed by the petitioner was fixed for arguments after recording of cursory evidence, therefore, learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, prior to filing of application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., petitioner had already moved a private complaint regarding the same occurrence on 09.04.2014 wherein cursory evidence had been recorded and it was fixed for arguments when application was dismissed vide the impugned order with the following observation:- "4. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner has already invoked jurisdiction of judicial forum in which the matter is under inquiry. When the matter is already pending before the competent court of jurisdiction, no direction or order on this petition can be passed."
Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has placed on record certified copies of private complaint filed by the petitioner and the order sheet of the learned trial that reflects that private complaint has already been dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.07.2014 after dismissal of application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. On 03.06.2.014. As the petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy by filing the private complaint regarding the similar occurrence, therefore, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace. I am of the considered view that impugned order is quite in accordance with law and does not call for any interference of this Court.
This writ petition being devoid of any force is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner, however, can proceed with his private complaint, if permissible under the law.