' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.---The precise facts leading to the institution of present ,writ petition are that respondent No,1 got a case registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,240, dated 15-6-2004 under sections 354-A/ 342/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Millat Park, Lahore alleging that the petitioner along with 7/8 unknown persons claded in civil clothes assaulted the petitioner stating that he was defaulter of payment of property tax and gave him 4 slaps on his face when wife of respondent tried to save her husband, the petitioner also slapped her and torn her clothes and made her naked to a public view and after detaining respondent in illegal custody, released him. It has further been stated that the petitioner was declared innocent during the investigation and a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted before the learned Magistrate section 30, Lahore for cancellation of the above mentioned F.I.R. Who vide impugned order, dated 24-4-2008 declined the cancellation of case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 was defaulter of the payment of property tax of Unit No,SXIX-I-S-8/12/B and the petitioner legally arrested him in accordance with law. He further submits that the police collected reliable defence evidence and sufficient material was available on the record on the basis of which it could have been concluded that report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Praying for cancellation of case was well based and that the Magistrate section 30 had not passed an exhaustive order and that his order is slipshod carrying no cogent reasons.
He also submits that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction and no legal consequence.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vehemently opposed this petition stating that a public servant was not supposed to go beyond the limits of law; that respondent No,1 was not owner of any property and allegation of his defaulting payment of any property tax was incorrect; that the petitioner/assaulted respondent, abused him extended threats to kill him, physically tortured him when his wife came forward to save him from the illegal act of the petitioner, he also belaboured her and stripped of her clothes and made her naked to a public view. Mere touching a woman amounts to commission of offence under section 354, P.P.C. And by striping of her clothes and making her naked to public view amounts to the commission of offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. And the respondent was also kept in illegal confinement. The petitioner and his co-accused while armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly, abducted the respondent. The commission of these offences stood established from the record of the case and sufficient reasons were existing on the record to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. And that the trial Court has passed a self speaking order of taking cognizance of the offences and that the Magistrate section 30 was having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of Police Station Millat Park, Lahore and thus, he passed the impugned order having jurisdiction to decide the present matter. He submits that the impugned order is perfectly right and needs no interference of this Court.
4. Having considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court has observed that from the perusal of the F.I.R. And the statements of prosecution witnesses, sufficient reasons were existing to proceed with the trial and therefore, trial Magistrate has rightly disagreed with the report seeking cancellation of the F.I.R. The impugned order of learned Magistrate is well-reasoned and perfect. The factual controversy agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be resolved by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction. The police had already submitted report under section 173, Cr .P.C. , therefore, the petitioner is equipped with remedy to file a petition under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And he had therefore, adequate and efficacious remedy under the aforesaid section.
5. In the above circumstances, present petition is without basis and is dismissed.