2011 P Cr (PLP)

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has illegally failed to register a criminal case against respondents Nos.8 to 10 on various charges levelled against them. The precise allegation against the respondents Nos.9 and 10 is that they had entered bogus mutation at the instance of respondents Nos.2 to 7 whereas allegation against the respondent No.8 is in the nature of tampering with the record of investigation by substituting findings recorded by the earlier investigating committee.

2. Before filing the present writ petition an earlier petition bearing W.P. No. 1896 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner in which similar allegations were made against the respondents. To redress the grievance of the petitioner the respondent No.1 was directed vide order dated 8-3-2010 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass an appropriate order. It appears from the impugned order that respondent No.1 has gone through the details of the case, afforded an opportunity of hearing and then passed order dated 8-4-2010, which has been impugned in this petition.

3. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Halqa Patwari and Tehsildar, on the basis of collusion with the respondents Nos.3 and 4, who are legal heirs of one Ali Siraj, deceased got mutated Mutation No.5329 on 11-11-2003 when allegedly Ali Siraj, deceased was admitted to a hospital. As such the Halqa Patwari and Tehsildar had committed a cognizable offence and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No.1 was under a legal obligation to prosecute them. The allegation against respondent No.8 is that he removed report of earlier investigation from his file and then got constituted another inquiry committee and secured the findings in favour of the respondents Nos.9 and 10.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Shariat the petitioners have a right to inheritance in the estate of the deceased, which have been circumvented by committing a fraud by the respondents. The finding recorded by the respondent No.1 does not by any stretch of imagination conclude that the petitioner has been deprived from his sharia right of inheritance. The respondent No.1 has merely opined, and rightly so, that in absence of any plausible evidence during pendency of the civil proceedings a criminal case is not made out. It is true that criminal and civil proceedings may continue side by side but for initiating criminal proceeding it must also be shown that from attending circumstances a criminal case is made out. According to the respondent No.1, in his discretion, the petitioner ought to wait for the outcome of civil proceedings. Another reason that supports the above finding is that admittedly Ali Siraj, deceased alienated 4 kanals of land to graveyard vide Mutation No. 5638 dated 25-8-2004. The only inference that can be drawn from above said alienation is that Mutation No.5329 dated 11-11-2003, which was attested by Tehsildar on 13-11-2003 was well within the knowledge of Ali Siraj, deceased as he appears to be in control of his property matters. In any event, it is no where alleged that Ali Siraj was hospitalized on 13-11-2003. Therefore, his presence before Tehsildar on 13-11-2003 has in fact not been assailed by the petitioner.

5. At this stage, I would not like to comment upon the evidence annexed with this petition lest it may prejudice the case pending before the learned trial Court. It should suffice to say that the records of private hospitals must not be taken into consideration without due care and circumspection as these hospitals are not being properly regulated nor there is any effective regulation to control their business activities. Even the names used by some of these uncontrolled hospitals infringe upon the provisions of section 37 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Corporate Law Authority in case of companies registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 or other Government Agencies have miserably failed to take notice that private hospitals cannot use the names of former heads of States and the names suggesting patronage of past and present Government. To my mind the name of Madr-e-Millat and even national heroes cannot be used by private organizations, for the very name Jinnah Hospital is deceptive as the general public is susceptible to think as if it is a government hospital.

6. The perusal of order dated 8-4-2010 reveals that all of the allegations have been sufficiently dealt with by the respondent No.l. An action has also been proposed against the respondent No.8. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. This petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-28/L Petition dismissed.