MANZOOR AHMAD vs D.I.-G. and others
This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, which sought a direction for the registration of a criminal case regarding the theft of an electric motor. The core legal question involves whether a constitutional petition for the registration of a criminal case can be maintained based merely on political rivalry and unsubstantiated apprehensions of abetment against specific respondents, without prima facie cogent evidence. The Lahore High Court held that mere apprehension and political enmity do not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant a direction for the registration of a criminal case or interference in constitutional jurisdiction, especially when the allegations appear mala fide and alternate remedies exist. The court laid down the principle that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to encourage litigation based on suspicion and surmises devoid of prima facie evidence.
- Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained for the registration of a criminal case based solely on apprehension and political rivalry?
- Does a mere apprehension in the mind of a petitioner make a person liable for a cognizable offence without prima facie cogent evidence?
- Whether the High Court will interfere in Intra-Court Appeals against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking police action where allegations appear mala fide?
- Section 3, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through the instant Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, the appellant seeks setting aside of the order dated 14-1-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers whereby he dismissed the Writ Petition bearing No,244 of 2005.
2. Brief facts succinctly required for the determination of this appeal are that the appellant constructed a residential house and got connection for drinking water from Municipal Committee D.G. Khan and for this purpose he installed an electric motor to fetch the drinking water. On 3-10- 2004, when the appellant came back after morning walk, he switched on the electric motor but the same did not work. The appellant found the electric motor missing from its place. The appellant has a great apprehension that the electric motor of the appellant has been taken away with the abetment of respondents Nos.4 and 5 as he has a political rivalry against respondents Nos.4 and 5 and he being a worker of the Pakistan Peoples Party contested the elections against father of respondent No,4 Sardar Ahmad Khan Laghari and he defeated him.
3. The appellant approached respondent No,3 S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan but he declined to register a criminal case. Thereafter, he filed a petition under section 22,A, Cr.P.C., wherein comments of respondent No,3 were called by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G.
Khan/Justice of Peace vide order, dated 13-12-2004. Abdul Hameed A.S.-I. Police Station Civil Lines D.G. Khan submitted his report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan after perusing the report of the A.S.-I. Disposed of the petition, holding that political enmity is admitted between the parties as such he was not inclined to issue any direction for registration of Case. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further observed that the appellant has an alternate remedy by way of filing a complaint, if so advised. Thereafter the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No,244 of 2005, seeking a direction for the registration of a criminal case. The learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissed the said writ petition vide order, dated 14-1-2005, holding that "there is no doubt that it contains allegation of theft, but the involvement of Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari and his son Sardar Jamal Khan Laghari appears to be without any substance and the complaint appears to have been instituted with mala fide intention". The learned Single Judge in Chambers further observed that "this Court in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction would not encourage such type of litigation" and was of the view that the appellant has nit come to the Court with clean hands.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.
5. The learned Single Judge in Chambers after careful examination of the documents and taking into consideration the allegations of the appellant, had rightly dismissed the constitutional petition.
In para.4 of the writ petition, the appellant has stated that "admittedly the electric motor of the petitioner has been stolen away and the petitioner has a great apprehension in his mind that respondents Nos.5 and 6 have abetted the offence and theft has been committed with their connivance". Apart from the said apprehension in his mind, no prima facie cogent evidence or clue regarding the involvement of respondents Nos.4 and 5 had been given in his complaint nor in his subsequent petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Nor in the writ petition. Mere apprehension in the mind of the appellant does not make a person liable for any cognizable offence. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Resultantly, this Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed.