' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.-Instant constitutional petitiqn had prayed a direction to the respondents requiring registration of criminal case under sections 419, 420, 468, 47>, 465, 466, 474 and. 34, P.P.C., with the claim that the petitioner had been residing at 122-G Model Town, Lahore for the last about 38 years with an ownership of agricultural land at Mauza Ladhay Kay Bhullar and Galvaira Lahore, a part of which was gifted by him to his son. Petitioner claimed that he came to know that one Abdul Qadir son of Abdul Majeed resident of Chak No. 140/10 Jahanian District Khanewal, has forged an agreement to sell dated 12-8-1976 touching his land though he never executed any such agreement and the same is forged, fabricated and' fictitious at the hands of its beneficiary. It was contended that petitioner neither purchased any stamp paper for execution of the alleged agreement to- sell nor he signed the same at its back or the register of the stamp vendor. It was also emphasized, that no earnest money was ever paid to the petitioner and Abdul Qadeer accused incorrectly inserted in the forged agreement that he paid a token consideration of Rs. 10,00,000. According to him, forgery committed by the culprits was brought to the notice of the respondents but they failed to discharge their statutory obligations in view of section 154, Cr.P.C. A direction in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was prayed to be issued for registration of criminal case against the named accused.
2. Having heard the case and perfused the record; it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 636) up to date, including the case of Muhammad Younis Khan and others v. Government of N-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and others (1993 SCM R 618). Besides this constitutional handicap, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of proceeding in the matter by filing a private complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. Law has also provided a course for investigation/inquiry if needed according to the opinion of the learned Magistrate cognizant of the prorate complaint through an , order under section 200, Cr.P.C. In view of availability of equally efficacious remedy by way of private complaint, I am not persuaded to direct registration of criminal case. Petitioner may, if so. Advised, have recourse to other alternative remedies provided by law. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.