' The petitioner, by filing the instant petition, seeks a direction of this Court to Sub-Divisional Police Officer/A.S.P., Gulberg, Lahore (respondent No,2) to lodge F.I.R. On the basis of application made by her (Annexure "A" with this petition).
2. In her application, referred to above, the petitioner had stated that in order to foil and frustrate a Marathon Race, which was being conducted by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, some police officials encircled her office at 131-E/1, Gulberg-III, Lahore and closed the outer door of the office; she along with some other female staffs of her office came out on the main road through a fire escape; she was attacked by some persons in civilian clothes and some females in the presence of hundred of uniformed policemen; a Deputy Superintendent of Police by the name of Rehana tore off her shirt and declared that she would teach her a lesson after making her naked; thereafter she was shoved into a police van and photographers were asked to take her pictures in a nude condition; that the incident had been witnessed by certain persons, who were present there. She seeks registration of a case against unknown persons and D.S.P. Rehana.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been making unsuccessful attempts to get a case registered. In this connection, it is alleged that Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations), Lahore (respondent No,1) has failed to live up to his promise that a case would be registered. It is alleged that the police are reluctant to act for the reason that they want to protect their colleagues from legal action.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that section 154, Cr.P.C. Mandates. S.H.O. Of the police station to record the F.I.R., if the information supplied to him discloses commission of a cognizable offence; that the petitioner's fundamental right to be treated in accordance with law as enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is being violated and that the petitioner being left with no alternative efficacious remedy is entitled to seek relief from this Court.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is petitioner's own case that the police functionaries down from the S.H.O. To the Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) are biased against her and are reluctant to register a case.
There is no cavil with the legal position that S.H.O. Is bound to register a case if he receives information regarding commission of a cognizable offence and the said allegations are found by him to be prima facie correct, yet the fact remains that while directing registration of a case, this Court cannot prohibit the S.H.O. Concerned from investigating the case. If the police are not favorably inclined towards the petitioner A on account of any interest in the accused persons, they are likely to spoil the case of the petitioner even in the first few Zimnies, which they were bound to record after registration of the case. In these circumstances issuing a direction for registration of case will not serve any useful purpose and the remedy by filing a private complaint directly before the Magistrate would be more effective and efficacious. Reference can profitably be made to the case of Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. Station House Officer Police Station Shorkot and another PLD 1978 Lah.
1323 and the case of Muhammad Masood v. S.S.P., Railways, Rawalpindi and others 2000 PCr.LJ 67, wherein this Court had held that even after registration of a criminal case against the police officials under orders of the High Court, investigation could not be controlled and regulated by the High Court, therefore, most efficacious remedy available to the complainant was to file a private complaint rather than directing registration of a criminal case against the police officials. The insistence of the petitioner to get a criminal case registered in the given scenario will be quite unrealistic and according to the dictates of realism remedy by way of a private complaint would be more appropriate.
6. Notwithstanding what has been stated above, another equally efficacious and speedy remedy by, way of making an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. To the Court of Session has not been invoked by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge in his capacity as Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace is fully equipped to grant the requisite relief to the petitioner.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine.