2022 M L D 1263

2022 M L D 1263
[Islamabad]
Before Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, J
JEHANZEB KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
JUSTICE OF PEACE, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, ISLAMABAD-EAST and others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.363 of 2022, decided on 3rd February, 2022.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss.22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Dispute of civil nature---

Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of FIR on
the application of the respondent company---Case of company was that the petitioner had continued to
retain the company car given to him for the purposes of his employment long after him ceasing to be an
employee and thereby committed criminal breach of trust---Contention of petitioner was that an
employee of the company had promised to pay his outstanding salary with the commitment that till
payment of the due amount he would not be dispossessed from the vehicle---Held; alleged verbal
promise, for which no documentary proof was on record, was inconsistent with the application filed by
the company before Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Alleged undertaking was not worthy of any credence
unless proved in evidence led at the trial---Petitioner had already filed a suit for recovery of his dues
from the company, his continued possession did not appear to be warranted in law---Temporary
injunction granted by Trial Court was against illegal snatching and in its terms had created an exception
for recourse to the legal process---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
2019 MLD 503; 2019 PCr.LJ Note 23; 2019 YLR 1299; 2017 PCr.LJ Note 179 and 2019 YLR 1897
distinguished.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss.22-A & 22-B---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Powers of Ex-officio

Justice of Peace---Judicial review---Scope---Court's role is limited to examining the illegality or lack or
excess of jurisdiction by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace in passing an order---Only the orders passed,
directions issued and actions taken by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace in excess of his powers can be
quashed through judicial review.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.22-A---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Ipse dixit of police---Scope---Ex-officio Justice of Peace

is not bound by the report of the police as he exercises a quasi-judicial function by looking at all the facts
and circumstances before him, the police report being only one of them---Entire purpose of S.22-A(6),
Cr.P.C., will be defeated if the police report becomes binding on a Justice of Peace.
Younus Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581 ref.
Khizar Hayat Khan for Petitioner.
ORDER
SARDAR EJAZ ISHAQ KHAN, J.---The petitioner assails the order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the
learned ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR on the application of respondent
No.3, who is an authorised representative of Innvotek Pharmaceuticals, the erstwhile employer of the
petitioner.
2. The application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., was moved on behalf of Innvotek Pharmaceuticals
praying for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner, claiming that he continued to retain the
company car given to him for the purposes of his employment long after him ceasing to be an employee
and thereby committed criminal breach of trust as the car was given to him on trust for the purpose of
his employment only.
3. The report of the Superintendent of Police to the learned Justice of Peace on the sections 22-A/22-B
application stated that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature pertaining to the outstanding dues of
salary for which the petitioner has also availed civil remedy. The learned Justice of Peace nonetheless
directed the SHO to register the FIR and to proceed in accordance with law subject to submission of
proof of vehicle and ownership of company before the SHO.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that a suit for declaration, recovery of salary dues and
permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner in November, 2021 against Innvotek Pharmaceuticals
wherein a temporary injunction dated 11.11.2021 was granted in favour of his client. The language of
the temporary injunction in material part is reproduced below:-
"…defendant is restrained from illegally snatching the vehicle No. AEF-688 from plaintiff. However,
this order would have no effect on any other legal/judicial proceedings."
5. Learned counsel has cited 2019 MLD 503 to assert that the pendency of a civil dispute is a relevant
factor for the Justice of Peace to take into account, which according to him has not been looked at in the
impugned order. However, the said judgment has no relevance to the case at hand because there the
criminal case was sought to be registered for the same rented property for which the civil litigation was
pending, whereas in the instant case the civil dispute pertains to salary dues while the FIR sought to be
registered pertains to a car that is being retained by the petitioner without due authorization from the
company. The other judgments cited (2019 PCr.LJ Note 23 Lahore, 2019 YLR 1299 Lahore, 2017 PCr.LJ
Note 179 Sindh and 2018 YLR 1897 Balochistan) by learned counsel have different facts and
circumstances and are not found relevant.
6. In ground 3 (l) of the writ petition, it is averred that:

"…The respondent No.3 is not entitled to claim ownership of motorcar bearing Reg No. 688/AEE nor
can claim its recovery because it has been confiscated due to non-payment of outstanding dues of the
petitioner..."
(emphasis supplied)
7. What would the law and order situation be if a claimant in a civil dispute is allowed to confiscate
some property of a defendant pending the decision in the litigation? Which doctrine of law entitles a
plaintiff to appropriate some property of a defendant saying that the defendant is not entitled to claim
ownership of its asset until its prayer in the suit is granted? The sheer absurdity of the plea of the
petitioner merits that is not answered.
8. In ground 3(f), the petitioner claims that respondent No.3 promised to pay its outstanding dues "…
with the commitment that till the payment of the due amount to the petitioner he will not be
dispossessed from the suit vehicle…." However, the alleged verbal promise, for which no documentary
proof is on record, is inconsistent with the sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. application filed by respondent
No.3. The petition relies on some oral understanding with some official of the company but such alleged
undertaking, unless proved in evidence led at the trial, is not worthy of any credence at this stage when
the company itself seeks recovery of the vehicle.
9. As the petitioner has already filed a suit for recovery of his dues from the company, his continued
possession of the car of the company does not appear to be warranted in law. Further, the temporary
injunction reproduced above is against illegal snatching, and in its terms creates an exception for
recourse to the legal process undertaken by the company for recovery of the car by filing the application
under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C.
10. This Court's role is limited to examining any illegality or lack or excess of jurisdiction by the learned
Justice of Peace in passing the impugned order. Only the orders passed, directions issued and actions
taken by the Justice of Peace in excess of his powers can be quashed through judicial review. The
learned Justice of Peace is not bound by the report of the police as he exercises a quasi-judicial function
by looking at all the facts and circumstances before him, the police report being only one of them - see
Younus Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, PLD 2016 Supreme Court 581. The entire purpose
of the jurisdiction conferred under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., will be defeated if (as argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner) the police report becomes binding on a Justice of Peace.
11. Resultantly, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned and this petition is therefore dismissed
in limine.
12. The observations made are for the purpose of disposal of this petition only and shall have no
bearing on any other legal proceedings which will be conducted in accordance with law.
SA/29/Isl. Petition dismissed.

2022 M L D 1263

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 M L D 1263

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 M L D 1263

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 M L D 1263

Before Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, J

JUSTICE OF PEACE, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, ISLAMABAD-EAST and others---Respondents

Writ Petition No.363 of 2022, decided on 3rd February, 2022.

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

----Ss.22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Dispute of civil nature---

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

----Ss.22-A & 22-B---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Powers of Ex-officio

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

----S.22-A---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Ipse dixit of police---Scope---Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Khizar Hayat Khan for Petitioner.

6. In ground 3 (l) of the writ petition, it is averred that:

SA/29/Isl. Petition dismissed.

You might also like