' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal with leave of the Court has been filed to assail the judgment of the High Court passed on 18-4-2001 whereby a direction has been issued in a writ petition to S.H.O. Afzalpur and other police officials for the registration of a case against the appellants, herein.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal, as claimed by respondent No,1 in her writ petition, precisely stated are that on the report lodged by appellant No,1 a case was registered against Umar Farooq and Muhammad Nawaz sons of respondent No,1. All the family members were arrested by the police except Rehmat Khan, the father of respondent No,1 whose age, as she claimed was 85 to 90 years. According to respondent No,1 the appellants launched an attack upon her house and looted every thing lying therein and then set it at fire. This incident was witnessed by many persons. She lodged a report with S.H.O. Police Station Mirpur who refused to register the case against the respondents, herein. She, therefore, was constrained to move an application before the high-ups of Police Department of District Mirpur. However, when all these efforts proved fruitless she moved an application before the District Magistrate, Mirpur who appointed E.A.C. As an Inquiry Officer who under the direction of District Magistrate later on conducted inquiry and submitted his report to the District Magistrate in which he contended that prima facie the allegation levelled by respondent No,1 was correct and the report lodged by respondent No,1 against appellants prima facie, constitutes a commission of cognizable offence, therefore, a case in such circumstances should be registered against the appellants. In the light of this inquiry the District Magistrate directed the S.H.O. Police Station Afzalpur to, register a case against the culprits and proceed further in accordance with law. When no report despite the direction of District Magistrate was registered, respondent No,1 was compelled to file a Constitutional petition in the High Court under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 seeking direction against S.H.O. Afzalpur, Deputy Superintendent Police, Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate, Deputy Inspector-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police for the registration of a case against the appellants. This writ petition, after necessary proceedings, was ultimately allowed by the High Court vide judgment, dated 18-4-2001 whereby the police officials were directed to register the case and investigate the matter in accordance with law. This judgment of the High Court has been assailed before us in the present appeal.
3. Ch. Reaz Alam, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the alleged occurrence, as pleaded in the report of respondent No,1, took place on 31-3-2000 whereas she moved complaint for the registration of the case on 3-5-2000. According to him about this occurrence a report was lodged by one Muhammad Nawaz son of Alif Din caste Mughal at Police Station Afzalpur, on 31-3- 2000. In the light of that report, the incident was thoroughly investigated by the police which had drawn the conclusion that the accused party in the murder case was responsible for setting at fire the house of Mst. Azmat Bibi respondent No,1 in order to save their "skin in the murder case which stood registered against them. In the light of that investigation the police came to the conclusion that it would be a futile exercise to register a case against the complainant party on the report of respondent No,l. According to the police investigation, in fact the house was set at fire by the accused persons in order to set up a counter-version in the murder case. The learned counsel further contended that it does not look probable that as a member of the complainant party was murdered, they would have indulged in setting at fire the house of respondent No, 1.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants, in support of aforementioned fact, relied on the written statement of police officials wherein it is alleged by them that the police had conducted the investigation in respect of incident and found the story of setting at fire the house of respondent No,1 by the appellants to be baseless as such did not feel it expedient to register a case against the complainant party of the murder case. He further argued that the writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed as it was hit by laches. He in support of his contentions relied upon two unreported judgments of this Court:--
5. In Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Afzal and others decided on 29-2-1996, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had directed the S.H.O. Concerned to register a counter-case on behalf of accused party but on appeal the order of the High Court was set aside on two grounds; firstly that in the light of the comments filed by S.H.O. In which he had stated that he investigated the version given in the application by the accused party and found it false and secondly on the ground that after this report the fresh investigation would be futile exercise, therefore, the remedy by way of private complaint was held appropriate.
' In Mehboob Khan v. Fazal Ellahi 1995 PCr.LJ 1778 the writ was allowed by the High Court and a direction was issued to S.H.O. Police Station Kotli to register a case on the basis of a report submitted to him by the accused-petitioner. On appeal to this Court, the writ petition was dismissed besides other on the ground of laches. In that case the occurrence took place on 8-3- 1992. The accused person was sent to stand trial before the Court on 22-3-1992. He after 22-3-1992 moved an application for registration of a counter-case against the complainant party in which he contended that he was arrested by the police as such could not file the counter-case against them and filed a writ petition on 20-4-1992 after 28 days of the occurrence. The High Court allowed his petition and directed S.H.O. Police Station Kotli to register the case against complainant. On appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside on the ground of laches and on the ground that the accused-complainant in that case should avail the alternate remedy by filing a private complaint before the competent Court.
5. On the other hand Ch. Liaqat Ali Khan the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that in the complaint the complainant party was levelled charges of cognizable offences. Even the names of witnesses were mentioned who had seen the whole occurrence. Therefore, as the report of his client was disclosing prima facie the commission of cognizable offences the police was bound to register a case in the relevant book and proceed against the accused persons in accordance with law. It was not within the competence of the police to refuse to register the information so furnished by his client in the prescribed book. He also argued that the report was lodged by respondent in respect of separate incident. Even otherwise, it is no where mentioned that when an information is entered under section 154, the subsequent report cannot be entered in the relevant book and investigation cannot be made about the correctness of such report. He particularly referred to the words "every information" mentioned in section 154, Cr.P.C. In support of his contention. He further argued that in this case due to negative attitude adopted by S.H.O., D.S.P. And S.P. His client was compelled to seek the indulgence of District Magistrate who appointed Extra- Assistant Commissioner for inquiry. The Extra-Assistant Commissioner in his inquiry substantiated the version of his client. In the light of this inquiry report the District Magistrate directed the police of his District to register the case against the culprits but even this direction was flouted, leaving for his client no alternative but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent it was a separate incident and the police had drawn a wrong conclusion that the complainant party themselves set at fire their house to set up a case of cross-version in order to defend themselves in the murder case which stood registered against them at the instance of appellant No, 1.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. No doubt whenever, any information is furnished to a Police Officer relating to a cognizable offence the Police Officer is under statutory obligation to enter such information in the prescribed register and proceed with the investigation without any delay.
' In the present case no doubt the information was furnished by the respondent attributing cognizable offence to have been committed by the appellants. Her report, therefore, should have been entered in the relevant register. However, about the same incident a report was lodged on the day of occurrence by one Muhammad Nawaz son of Alif Din. The police entered this report under section 154, Cr.P.C. And conducted investigation. In the light of the investigation the police came to the conclusion that the accused party was responsible for this incident. This conclusion has been owned by all the officials of the police posted in Mirpur District. The case of the respondent is that the incident reported by her in her report was in respect of a different incident, which was reported by her to S.H.O. Police Station Afzalpur through one Muhammad Rafique on 3-5-2000 but no case was registered. She subsequently through written applications requested D.S.P., S.P. And then on 11- 5-2000 to D.I.-G. Of Police Mirpur for the registration of the case against the culprits, but on account of influence of the accused party no case was registered against them. She thereafter, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Mirpur who forwarded her application to S.S.P. But again the S.P. Failed to act upon the direction of District Magistrate. She thereafter filed another application before the District Magistrate who appointed Extra-Assistant Commissioner for inquiry and report. The Extra-Assistant Commissioner conducted the inquiry and submitted his report to the District Magistrate in which he prima facie, concurred with the allegation levelled by respondent No,1 against the complainant party. The District Magistrate on the basis of this report gave clear orders to the police for the registration of the case on 10-6-2000. Even on the direction of District Magistrate no case was registered by the police. The respondent, therefore, was constrained to avail the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the registration of the case. Her writ petition was allowed and the Police Officers were directed to register the case and proceed with investigation under law. From the aforementioned facts it becomes clear that the occurrence took place on 21-3-2000 whereas for the first time the report was lodged by the respondent through one Muhammad Rafique on 3-5-2000 seeking the registration of the case against complainant party.
No explanation has been furnished for this delay whereas according to the police officials the incident was investigated by them on the basis of a report which was lodged by Muhammad Nawaz son of Alif Din on the day of occurrence i,e, 31-3-2000. On the basis of their investigation the police came to the conclusion that the complainant party has no hand in the burning of the house of respondent No, 1 . This finding, as said earlier, has been owned by all the police officials, therefore, in our view it shall serve no purpose if a case is registered by the police on the direction of the High Court. The private complaint is the solution as was suggested by this Court in many judgments that if any person does not agree with the finding of the Investigating Agency he should file a private complaint before the competent Court seeking suitable action against the accused therein in accordance with law. The appellant in the case has insisted for the registration of the case by the police whereas the police is insisting on the investigation which it has conducted on the report of Muhammad Nawaz. The complaint having different version was filed by contesting respondent No,1 on 3-5-2000. Unexplained delay is always considered fatal in writ jurisdiction as it attracts mischief of laches. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the contesting respondent as to why she filed 'complaint about the incident after the delay of about 33 days. A report relating to cognizable offence can be lodged by any person as is contemplated under section 44, Cr.P.C. We have summoned the record of the police and examined it. From the police record it is clear that the matter was investigated by the police on the report of Muhammad Nawaz son of Alif Din and a conclusion not acceptable to respondent No,1 was drawn by the police. The effort made by respondent No,1 in view of these facts shall not bear any fruit for her. Her writ petition was hit by the doctrine of laches. Therefore, in view of above facts we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and order the dismissal of writ petition filed by the respondent No, 1 .