1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18-6-2009 passed by the learned In charge District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South on the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Grievance of the petitioner is that during investigation of the Crime No, 179 of 2008 dated 27-8-2008 property documents of the petitioner's plot were discovered. According to the learned counsel such F.I.R.
2. Does not contemplate the crime of committing forgery, in the title documents of the petitioner and by committing the forgery, the property has been sold away. Admittedly the allegation raised by the petitioner of committing the forgery is against his own brother who was living in the same house. The learned trial Court dismissed the application after notice to the concerned police and on examination of record concluded as follows:-- "(4) I am of the humble view that Police Officer has conducted the investigation in respect of state of allegations to which complainant has levelled against the proposed accused person while lodging the report vide Crime No, 179 of 2008 and it would immaterial at this stage to issue the directions to S.H.O. Of Police Station Mouchko to lodge the separate F.I.R. In respect of commitment of forgery or to prepare the forged documents because complainant will have the privilege to file the civil suit for cancellation of such documents or to file the direct complaint if he is so aggrieved with the action of proposed accused persons and also the applicant has the privilege to file the application before the learned Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction to transmit the charge- sheet of the case to the honourable Sessions Judge for amending the sections 468 and 471 and so much so the applicant will have the privilege to file the application under section 227, Cr.P.C. To amend or to alter the charge under the relevant provision after recording the deposition before the Court. I do not see any merits to issue the instructions to the S.H.O. To register the report as proposed by the applicant, hence the application is being dismissed accordingly."
3. When the learned counsel was confronted as to when he may file a direct complaint he stated that the subject F.I.R. Lodged by the different person and he cannot invoke to file a complaint on the basis of direction of the Court.
4. ' It may be observed that any person need no direction of the Court to lodge a complaint. The learned Court" of law has dealt with the matter appropriately and has also discussed the option which could have been invoked by the petitioner to seek the redress of the grievance.
5. ' We find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner may, however, file direct complaint and/or exercise the option as already discussed by the trial Court.