' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, ].--Through this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 8-9-2011, passed by learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby he has rejected an application filed by the applicant under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr . P. C .
2. III his application, the applicant after disclosing transaction of some money with the`proposed accused has stated that on 22-8-2011, when he was available in Otaq of his friend Mukhtiar Ali with witnesses, where at about 11-30 a.m. Proposed accused (1) Faiz Muhammad, (2) Zulfiqar Ali, and (3)
Mansoor accompanying two unidentified persons came there and while pointing pistols over complainant party used abusive language and accused Mansoor took out Rs,200,000 from the pocket of applicant and a mobile set and left the scene by extending threats of dire consequences.
3. The learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge Larkana/Justice of Peace, declined the prayer of the applicant by holding that, there is dispute between the parties over the matter of money transaction and application appears to be filed with mala fide intention.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the State Counsel for the applicant contended 'that learnedJustice of Police has erred in law and exercised discretion in favour of the proposed accused. He further added that the contents of application filed by applicant under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C., prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and as per provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. The Officer Incharge of the. Police Station is required and bound to register F.I.R. And he has no power to refuse to register the same, if from the information a cognizable offence is made out.
5. On the other hand learned State counsel submitted that the matter between the parties appears to be of civil nature, therefore, it does not require interference by this Court.
6. From the perusal of contents of the application filed under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C, it appears that applicant has not returned' token amount of Rs,50,000 to the proposed accused, which has become a cause for filing of, this applicatioft. Therefore, matter appears to be of civil nature. Moreover, the S.H.O. Concerned in his para-wise comments statement filed in these proceedings has in clear words stated that no such incident 'has taken place as per his information and dispute between the parties is regarding payment of some amount.
7. In the case of Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera .Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCM R 951), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that filing of private complaint could provide an equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could be adequately redressed considering also the fact that respondent/S.H.O., who in the report and para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the petitioner's case, therefore, it could not be expected from the concerned S.H.O. That he would carry independent and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 'Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective of the facts arid circumstances which could call for exercise of judicial restraint in turning down the request for registration of F.I.R in view of the conduct of the party, besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner.
8. Keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Habibullah (supra) and looking to the fact that when the concerned police authorities are not prepared to accept contention of the applicant and has mentioned adverse to the petitioner's case, therefore, it would be appropriate for him to file a private complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
The application in hand being meritless is dismissed.