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.
Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Criminal Proceedings
3527/20
| 2020 LHC 151 |
0 Comments