' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for registration of a criminal case against Mohsin son of Mehdi, Zaheer son of Bashir, Ramzan son of Muhammad Anwar and Waqas son of Ilyas and for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, dated 8-9-2006, whereby the application of the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an application on 21-8- 2006 with the District Police Officer, Narowal, and seeking registration of a case against the aforementioned persons which was entrusted to the S.H.O., however, the needful was not done.
Consequently, the petitioner had to resort to filing of a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, on which comments were called from the concerned Police Officer. The comments, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner were concocted and not based on true facts, hence the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex- Officio Justice of Peace passed while relying on the same was illegal and not in accordance with law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application filed by the petitioner under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, the comments submitted by the police and the impugned order.
4. In the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. As well as in the instant writ petition the persons against whom registration of criminal case is sought have not been arrayed as respondents. The comments submitted by the police before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace reveal that the claim of the petitioner regarding abduction of her son was totally baseless as no such occurrence had taken place. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner earlier filed a similar petition before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on 17-7-2006, which was dismissed, whereafter she filed another application before Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Gondal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal. Since her earlier petition had been dismissed on merit, as such without there being any fresh ground a similar petition cannot be preferred. In the application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. No specific date and time of the alleged occurrence is mentioned which creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the version narrated by the petitioner.
'The petitioner, even otherwise, has adequate alternate remedy available under the law by way of filing a private complaint against the aforementioned persons.
5. The controversy essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact which exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court: Reliance is placed on the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. Resultantly, this petition being without any force is dismissed in limine.