1. ' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---This petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against order, dated 25-2-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, yandi Bahauddin.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioner filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C.
3. Alleging therein that her friend Mst. Bushra Parveen was subjected to zina-bil-jabr by respondents Nos.3 to 5. That a cognizable offence has been made out for registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.3 to 5.
4. ' Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace called for comments from the concerned S.H.O. Who reported that the petitioner is a lady of ill-repute and the story as put forward in the petition under section 22-A, Cr:P.C. Has been concocted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Mandi Bahauddin in the impugned order, dated 25-2-2010 dismissed the petition while relying on report which was submitted by the concerned S.H.O.
5. ' Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of petition filed by the petitioner under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Reveals that a cognizable offence had been committed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by respondent No,1 in not issuing a direction for registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos. 3 to 5. That the concerned S.H.O. Was duty bound to record the statement of the complainant and subsequently register an F.I.R. Against the accused as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C. That blood samples, vaginal swabs and clothes worn by the victim arc still lying in the hospital, since an F.I.R. Has not been registered against the, accused.
6. That any inquiry held by the concerned S.H.O. Prior to registration of F.I.R. Has no value in the eyes of law. Lastly it is submitted that filing of a private complaint is not a efficacious remedy. In support of his contentions learned counsel relies on "Allah Ditta v. Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab and 12 others" (2008 PCr.LJ 908), "Mst. Malka Jan v. Inspector General of Police, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 2 others" (2000 PCr.LJ 320), "Maulvi Shahzado Dreho v. Khalid Mahmood Soomro and others" (2003 PCr.LJ 319) and "Saeed Ahmad and others v. Naseer Ahmad and others" (PLD 2000 Lah. 208).
7. ' Learned law officer and learned counsel for respondent No,3 submits that no exception can be taken to impugned order dated 25-2-2010 passed by respondent No,l. That petitioner has alternate remedy of filing private complaint and since this has not been done this petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is trite that disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into this Court while exercising its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article, 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. A bare perusal of the record reveals that there is a factual controversy which cannot be resolved by this Court as has been held by the apex Court in Col. Shah Sadiq. v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276. The petitioner has alternate remedy for filing of a private complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment, dated 9-9-2009 passed in Civil Petition No,1398-L/2009 titled Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti etc. ' The arguments advanced by the petitioner that filing of a private complaint would not be an efficacious remedy is wholly without any substance. This aspect of the case was examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab) Lahore and others PLD 2005 Lahore 470 wherein it was held that a person who files a private complaint is not at any disadvantage. It was held that "the impression entertained by a large section of the legal community in our country that in case of filing of a private complaint the accused person cannot be arrested and recovery cannot be effected from him is nothing but erroneous and fallacious". As such it can safely be said that filing of a private complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction is an efficacious remedy and since the petitioner has not availed of it the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not competent.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit and it is dismissed.