2002 PLP 530 (CLC)

(a) To direct the S.H.O. T.P.X to record the statement of petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. thereafter to take the appropriate and legal action against the culprits above named according to provisions of law and submitted report under section 154, Cr.P.C. with stipulated period to the competent Court of law. (b) Cost of the petition. (c) Any other relief/relieves which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." The petitioner in his petition has stated that his brother had married Mst. Rubina. The relations of his brother and Mst. Rubina after some time were strained as she developed her illicit connections with one Muhammad Ayub. Due to this dispute, his brother left for his native place Bangladesh. On 10‑8‑2001, when the petitioner came back to his house, he saw Mst. Rubina and Muhammad Ayub in objectionable position. He informed the Muhallah people and made such complaint to the police. The names of witnesses are mentioned in the petition. It is submitted that said Muhammad Ayub is on illicit terms with Mst. Rubina and both of them have been committing Zina, therefore, police may be directed to record their report. The notices were issued to S.H.O. concerned who has submitted his comments wherein it is stated that on 18‑8‑2001, an application was moved by the petitioner which was received by them for enquiry. Nobody came forward to support the version of petitioner. The petitioner failed to produce any witness in support of his application, therefore, no action could be taken. On 1‑10‑2001, an application was received from Mst. Rubina which was investigated by. S.D.I. KPT Inspector Abdul Jabbar. He levelled allegations in the said application that her brother‑in‑law Farid, (the petitioner), Masood and Abdul Sattar alongwith some other unknown persons. intruded her house and committed robbery. The inquiries were conducted by the police but the applications moved by the parties were found to be frivolous and false. The parties are residing in same locality, therefore, the situation was very tense and they were trying to cause breach of peace. The police took action under sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. against them. Both parties are facing the said proceedings. The applications moved by both the parties against each other were found false. The copies of proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. have been produced by S.H.O. which .are brought on record. Mr. Abbas Ali learned A.A.‑G. states that the parties are related to each other. The dispute in between the parties is continuing since long and the action is taken by the police against petitioner as well as respondents. The factual aspects of the case are disputed in this matter. The counter‑allegations have been levelled by the parties. The respondent Mst. Rubina, the proposed accused had moved an application against the petitioner and his companions that they tress-passed into‑her house and committed robbery, therefore, the report be registered against them. The petitioner also moved an application against Mst. Rubina that she is on illicit terms with one Muhammad Ayub and both of them have been committing Zina. The applications were scrutinized by the police and both applications were found to be false. The registration of F.I.R. through Constitutional petition is a discretionary relief which can only be granted when it is found to be justified, fair and reasonable. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is neither justified nor fair and reasonable. The alternate adequate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing direct complaint in the case. The reference can be made to a case of Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh and another PLD 1997 Kar. 600, wherein their Lordships have held as under: "Therefore, the question, whether discretion must be exercised in favour of a party, in a given case, arid directions must be given to a Police Officer to register an F.I.R., would depend upon the circumstances of each case. So far as the contention that alternate remedy must equally be an efficacious remedy is concerned, suffice it to say that, a private complaint can provide an equally adequate relief to the complainant, because he can lead the entire evidence himself before the Court. It would, therefore, be erroneous to assume that grievance of the petitioner cannot be adequately redressed by filing of a private complaint. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the directions sought by the petitioner in the present case need not be given by us to the respondents." In similar circumstances the registration of F.I.R. was refused by a single Judge of Lahore High Court and the petitioner being aggrieved by that order filed a petition before Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court in a case of Jamshed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149, maintained the order of High Court and observed as under:‑‑ "The petition could be thrown out on the short ground that the High Court was under no obligation to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. It was a‑ matter resting entirely. in its discretion and there is nothing to indicate that it was improperly exercised. Even otherwise, by no means does the impugned order shut the door on the petitioner who is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint. The position is too well known to be reiterated that the Supreme Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and interferes only in cases of grave injustice. The present case being certainly not one of those. The petition is, therefore, dismissed." Consequently, this Constitutional petition is meritless and stands dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑278/K Petition dismissed.