1989 P Cr (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, CJ.-- By this common order we intend to dispose of above 3 petitions. The petitioner by Constitutional Petition No. D-1060 of 1988 has sought a declaration to the effect that he is entitled to have the list of the properties, which were initially attached and the fist of the properties, which are presently under attachment by the respondent i.e. the F.IA. Whereas by Constitutional Petition No. D-1097 of 1988, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to conduct his business within the legal framework prescribed by law and also a direction to respondents Nos. 2 to 6 i.e. Federal Government, Provincial Government, Inspector-General of Police and F.IA. to extend protection to the person, liberty and property of the petitioner. By Constitutional Petition No. D-1114 of 1988, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondent for allowing the petitioner to operate his account No. 553 in the name of Samad Housing and in the alternative, the amount be invested as fit and proper by this Court for the satisfaction of the claimants of the claims against the petitioner. It seems that in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 1987 file by the State Bank of Pakistan inter alia against the petitioner non-bailable warrant has been issued, against the petitioner inter alia on 15-6-1988, 9-7-1988, 25-8-1988 and 2-10-1988 as the petitioner had failed to appear before the Court on 31-5-1988, 4-7-1988, 17-7-1988, 8-8-1988, 30-8-1988, 20-9-1988 and 16-10-1988 though the bail bond was executed by him for his appearance. It also seems that there are certain F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner under section 406/409/420/34, P.P.C.; one of them is F.I.R. No.18/88 dated 15-6-1988. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been avoiding the process of law i.e. the execution of non-bailable warrant issued by this Court. The question arises as to whether a Constitutional Petition in favour of; the person, who has been avoiding the service of process of law can by entertained. Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that if the petitioner is not provided protection, he will be arrested by the F.IA. and will be maltreated and the object of the petitioner to satisfy the claims of the claimants, will be frustrated. In our view, if a person is fugitive from law, he cannot invoke Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction until he submits to the process of law. In the instant case, it was open to the petitioner to have moved the learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27/87 for appropriate relief in order to be present in the Court. The above Constitutional petitions contain general averments. No specific order/action has been impugned. The object of filing of the above petitions seems to be to pre-empt the various legal proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner by the law enforcing agencies. Remedy of Constitutional petitions is not designed to frustrate legal process. The petitions have no merits and, therefore, they are dismissed in limine j S.A./A-523/K Petitions dismissed.