' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his application discloses commission of a cognizable offence, therefore, respondent-S.H.O. Is bound to register a case under the relevant provisions of the law. On the above basis, the learned counsel also urges that his application filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Should have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge instead of dismissing it. He refers 1993 SCM R 550; PLD 1995 Lah. 417; 2001 SCM R 1556; 2002 M LD 280; PLD 2002 Lah. 78; 2004 PCr.LJ 1214.
2. The learned Additional sessions Judge has observed in his order, dated 24-12-2004 that there is a land dispute of graveyard between the parties, hence no cognizable offence is made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also referred to the report submitted by the respondent- S.H.O. Who had inquired the matter on direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is well reasoned.
3. The learned Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges have been conferred powers under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. To lessen the burden of High Court but apparently, it seems it has increased. The Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges exercise the jurisdiction on behalf of High Court, therefore, there is no point that firstly the applications should be entertained by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C., and then by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution on the same subject. The purpose of empowering Sessions Judges is being stultified and baulked. The order of the learned Sessions Judge must be given due respect and consideration.
3-A. Even otherwise under the law, adequate remedy is available in form of complaint. The conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the controversy/subject-matter of this writ petition cannot be brushed aside lightly.
4. Even otherwise relief under Article 199 of the Constitution is a discretionary. The High Court has to be satisfied for issuance of an appropriate writ, it cannot be issued in every case as a matter of policy B or routine. Every case has to be adjudged on its own merits and facts. The present petition is to be decided in the facts discussed above. For further guidance reliance is placed on the cases Fida Hussain v. The State 1975 SCM R 150; Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Kar. 600 and Malik Khalid Mehmood v. Inspector-General of Police 2002 PCr.LJ 1613.
5. In view of the above discussion and findings, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.