' The brief facts out of which present petition arises are that the respondent filed Constitutional petition No.14041 of 2004 by mentioning incorrect address of the petitioner and also concealed in the contents of the writ petition that the petitioner has already filed W.P. No.5632 of 2002, in which name of respondent was mentioned as respondent No.5. The respondent has also been appearing in the said writ petition. The respondent has also concealed the various civil litigations between the parties pending before different Courts, therefore, action be initiated against the respondent under sections 476 and 195, Cr.P.C. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:- - "Muhammad Ehsan v. The State" (1971 SCM R 227);"Ghasia v. Thakur Ramsingh and others" (AIR 1917 Nagpur 180); (2000R 1915); (NLR 2001 Lahore 97) There is no judgment on these two pages.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
3. It is better and appropriate to re-produce the basic facts in chronological order and provisions of law to resolve the controversy' arising in this petition:--
(i) Muhammad Ilyas allegedly filed Constitutional Petition No.5632 of 2002, in which (Muhammad Shahbaz) present respondent was impleaded as respondent No.5.
(ii) the present respondent also filed Writ Petition No.14041 of 2004 challenging the vires of order dated 12-8-2004 passed by the Chief Administrator Auqaf.
(iii) Writ Petition No.14041 of 2004 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6-9-2004 by observing that the writ petition is not maintainable in the presence of alternative remedy. Section 476, Cr.P.C.
Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When any offences referred to in section 195, subsection (1) clause (b) or clause (c) has been committed in, or in relation to a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.
' In case, the provisions of law and facts are put in juxtaposition, then the respondent has not gained any benefit and not produced any document before this Court; therefore, ingredients of section 476, Cr.P.C. Are not rattracted in the present case as per law laid down in "Abdur Rahman v.
Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 1951 B.J. 85). It is settled principle of law that it is discretion of the Court to take cognizance of the matter or not as is evident from the provisions of law itself. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by law laid down in "Arif Manzoor Qureshi v. Raees Ahmad Khan, Director Legal L.D.A. (2003 YLR 249). The application is also filed after considerable delay, coupled with the fact that non-impleading of the petitioner in the writ respondent could not get the benefit of this fact. It is also settled law where a private party applies to the Court to prosecute his opponent, it may be safely presumed that there is malice behind the application as per law laid down in the following judgments:-- "Muntazar and another v. The State and others" (1998 PCr.LJ 1189)
"Abdullah v. The State and another" (PLD 1971 Peshawar 147).
It is also settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts of the case, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem" (1994 SCM R 2213). The respondent has challenged the vires of order of the Chief Administrator Auqaf in the Constitutional petition; therefore, I do not find any force in this petition.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.