' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The petitioner seeks registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos. 4 to 13 for having committed the murder of her grandson namely Maqsood alias Soodi and his friend namely Sardar alias Dara in an occurrence which took place on 25-4-2003. The petitioner's application for registration of a criminal case was not entertained by the S.H.O. And consequently on directions of this Court the petitioner filed a petition under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed' by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace vide order, dated 19th of November, 2007.
Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grandson of the petitioner as well as his friend Sardar alias Dara were killed in a fake encounter by the police officials i.e. Respondents Nos.4 to 13 as is evident from the inquiry report of the Magistrate in which he expressed doubt about the veracity of the police encounter and that although the petition filed with the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, however, a case was not ordered to be registered, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, on instructions, states that the grandson of the petitioner namely Maqsood alias Soodi and his co-accused Sardar alias Dara were desperate criminals who were involved in a number of criminal cases of heinous nature; that in respect of the occurrence narrated in the petition, case F.I.R. No.190 of 2003 was registered on 25-4-2003 and after completion of investigation, challan has been submitted in the Court, therefore, the petitioner has a remedy available to her before the learned trial Court; that the petitioner was not vigilant and did not agitate the matter for almost four years before any forum; that the accused/respondent No.8 the former S.H.O. Of Police Station Malka Hans, District Pakpattan Sharif was also injured in the occurrence, which implies that a genuine police encounter had taken place; that the petitioner has another remedy available to her under the law by way of filing a private complaint against the accused and that the order of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace whereby he dismissed the petition filed under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Is in accordance with law and does not call for interference by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General and have gone through the documents placed on the record.
5. The occurrence took place on 25-4-2003 and the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. Reveal that car Kia Sportage of Nazir Ahmad, MNA, bearing Registration No.IDM/4747 being driven by his driver was stopped by some dacoits and snatched at gun point. Two of the accused drove away in the snatched car, whereas the third one followed in another car. The occurrence was reported to the Wireless Control, Pakpattan Sharif, which alerted the concerned police station. The respondents- accused being police officials, on being alerted by the Wireless Controller, followed the accused, who on observing that they were being chased by the police, stopped the cars and tried to escape on foot. They were followed by the police and an exchange of fire took place between the parties, in consequence of which, two of the accused i.e. The grandson of the petitioner as well as Sardar alias Dara were killed. The third accused, however, managed to escape. On the statement of the driver, a separate case was registered against the accused. From the spot, police took into possession a Kalashnikov, a .30 bore pistol, bullets and both the cars i.e. The snatched car as well as the one being driven by the accused. Since the S.H.O., Police Station Malka Hans-respondent No.8 also sustained fire-arm injury in the occurrence, case F.I.R. No.190 of 2003 was registered.
6. As two of the accused had been killed in a police encounter, therefore, a judicial inquiry was ordered, which was conducted by a learned Magistrate who opined that the police encounter appeared to be doubtful. A report was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, who after perusing the report and the record disagreed with the findings of the learned Magistrate and consigned the file to the record. After a lapse of about 4 years, the petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.1009 of 2007 in this Court, in which on 12th of October, 2007 a direction was given to the petitioner to approach the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the redressal of her grievance.
The petition filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. By the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace vide the impugned order.
7. From the above, it is evident that the son of the petitioner as well as his friend and the third accused had participated in the crime of car snatching and had thereafter resorted to firing at the police party, in consequence of which a police encounter took place resulting in the death of two accused. The registration of a case for car snatching and case F.I.R. No.190 of 2003 under section 324, P.P.C. Regarding the actual occurrence in which respondent No.8 sustained a firearm injury, bespeak of a genuine police encounter. Thus, commission of a cognizable offence in the given facts and circumstances is not free from doubt and the allegation levelled by the petitioner of the deceased having been killed in a fake police encounter ex facie does not appear to be credible.
8. Further, it has been noticed that the petitioner had remained silent for almost 4 years i.e. From the date of occurrence (25-4-2003) till the filing of writ petition before this Court in year, 2007. The petitioner has not been able to put forth any convincing son for not agitating the matter earlier. It goes without saying that the law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. In any case, the grandson of the petitioner and his co-accused were desperate criminals who were involved in a number of criminal cases, mostly of dacoity. To be more precise, the petitioner had three cases registered against him, whereas his co-accused Sardar alias Dara was involved in 28 such cases.
Thus the possibility of the deceased having participated in the crime as asserted by the police does not appear to be preposterous or absured.
9. Insofar as the opinion of the. Inquiry Magistrate is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif after perusing the record and the inquiry report did not find himself in agreement with the opinion formed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility that the petitioner is making a concerted endeavour to have a false case registered against the respondents-accused for some ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. Since the intent of the petitioner does not appear to be bona fide but in fact smacks of malice, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Even otherwise, the Order of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is based on logical conclusions and no error or infirmity has been found therein. Needless to add that the petitioner has an adequate alternate remedy available to her under the law by way of filing a private complaint against the accused which is an equally efficacious remedy. Reliance is placed on the case of Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector- General of Police (Punjab) and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470).
10. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.