HABIBULLAH vs POLITICAL ASSISTANT, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others

' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 18- 9-2003 in Writ Petition No,9398 of 2002 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking direction from the Court that respondent No,2, S.H.O., P.S. B.M.P. Post Satta, Tribal Area, Dera Ghazi Khan, be directed to register criminal case against respondents Nos.3 to 14 for the commission of offences. The learned Judge in Chambers called for the report and para-wise comments from respondent No,1 who submitted his report and para-wise comments. After perusing the report and pars-wise comments, learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the writ petition observing:--- "According to this report, petitioner had approached him for the same relief and the matter was got twice investigated by him. Through different agencies it was reported that the allegations being levelled in the instant petition are false and as a result of a counter-blast of Case F.I.R.

No,2/2001 registered against petitioner's brother Muhammad Rafique. It was further reported that even the present petitioner is a hardened criminal, against whom four criminal cases were registered. It was also pointed out that petitioner has been involved in the case of abduction of a citizen of China from a Highway for "Tawan". In this background, I am not inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction for issuance of a direction for the registration of a case. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed."

3. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the record.

4. The petitioner submitted that statutory functionaries are not performing their duties by not registering the F.I.R. Against the respondents though he made report to respondent No,1 for taking necessary action against the culprits.

5. We do not find merit and substance in the submissions made by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner could not point out any legal or factual infirmity with the impugned order so also could not controvert what has been stated in the report and para-wise comments furnished by respondent No,1 . The High Court was under no obligation to issue direction for registration of F.I.R.

As the matter with regard to the issuance of direction for registration of case entirely rests with the Court and we have not been pointed out that the discretion of refusing to issue such direction was improperly exercised. The impugned judgment has also not shut the door of the petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging complaint and this Court normally would not interfere in the exercise of discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court except in case of grave injustice. It may be observed that filing of private complaint could provide an equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could be adequately redressed considering also the fact that respondent/S.H.O., who in the report and para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the D petitioner's case, therefore, it could not be expected from the concerned S.H.O. That he would carry independent and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective of the facts and circumstances which could call for exercise of judicial restraint in turning down the request for registration of F.I.R. In view of the conduct of the party besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner. Reference may be made to decision of this Court (i) Muhammad Ijaz v. S.H.O. Police Station, Rajana, Faisalabad 1979 SCM R 490 and other reported case (ii) Muhammad Hassan v.

S.S.P., Faisalabad and others 1992 PCr.LJ 2307 (iii) Muhammad Suleman v. Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala 1994 PCr.LJ 2416 (iv.) Zafar Iqbal and another v. Inspector- General of Police and others 1994 M LD 374 (v) Haji Muhammad Yaqoob v. S.P. Vehari and others 1997 PCr.LJ 876 (vi) Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh through Home Secretary Government of Sindh and another PLD 1997 Kar. 600 (vii) Muhammad Tufail alias Yaseen v. D.S.P. Pattoki and others 1998 PCr.LJ 1521 (viii) Dr. Kashir Rahim v. S.P. Multan and others 1998 M LD 495, and (ix) Javed Tariq Khan v. Ahmed Raza Khan and others 1999 M LD 3230.

7. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition therefore leave to appeal is declined and the same is dismissed.