' SARMAD JALAL OSAMANY, J.---Comments have been filed on behalf of respondent Mumtaz Ali in which he has totally denied the allegations levelled against him in the petition vis-a-vis harassm ent of the petitioner at his hands and also he has snatched Rs, 30,000 from the latter. It has been further submitted in the comments that the petitioner had borrowed sums amount from the ADBP a long time ago and said amount was returned in the year, 2000 hence the petitioners account with ADBP was closed thereafter and now nothing is outstanding from him. Hence the petition has been filed against respondent No,1 with mala fide intent just in order to pressurize and blackmail the respondent No, 1.
2. Mr. Habibullah G Ghori, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, says that in the circumstances the petition may be disposed of by directing the petitioner to avail all his remedies regarding the ' snatching of an amount of Rs, 10,000 from him by the respondent No,1 and also with observation that the petitioner would not be harassed by the respondent No,
1. To this submission Mr. Khadim Hussain Shaikh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No,1 has no objection.
However he says that the police authorities should only proceed against respondent No,1 if any cognizable offence is made out.
3. We have heard both the learned counsel. In our opinion factual controversy has been raised in this petition viz whether any amount of money was forcibly taken from the petitioner by the respondent No,1 which cannot be addressed in this petition. Hence we would dispose it of by observing that the petitioner may recourse to other legal remedies concluding both civil and criminal. However the police authorities are directed to proceed against the respondent No,1 only if a cognizable offence is made out, if the petitioner approaches them in this regard. .