' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---Impugned herein is the order of learned. Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Takht-e-Nasrati, District Karak, dated 22-2-2012, passed under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., whereby prayer for direction of ,registration of . F.I.R. Against the respondents has been dismissed.
2. Brief but relevant facts of the case forming the background of instant Writ Petition are that the petitioner has filed an application before Justice of Peace, Takht-e-Nasrati, District Karak, against S.H.O. Police Station Yaqoob Khan Shaheed, to the effect that the petitioner is a widow, mother of four sons, out of whom one is abroad, another is at Lahore and two others are residing with her, out of them, one is mentally handicapped. On 3-2-2012 an occurrence took place in village Chatta Banda, Takht-e-Nasrati, regarding which F.I.R. No, 37 dated 3-2012, under sections 302/324/353/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 ATA was registered. In consequence of above said F.I.R., the house of petitioner was raided by the S.H.O. And other police officials; the house was ablaze and the household articles including bedding and quilts were thrown into inferno. Police contingents also smashed the doors and wardrobe and removed valuable articles including Crockery, Blankets, two Blackberry Mobile Phones, valuing Rs,1,20,000 and other Electronics appliances. The raid was conducted at 9-30 a.m., which was also witnessed by one Mst. Nasreen Begum, her daughter-in-law. The petitioner approached the DSP Takht-e-Nasrati for taking action against Inspector Jahangir and other police 'officials, but in vain. She requested that the F.I.R. Be registered against Inspector/S.H.O., Jahangir Khan, Police Station Takht-e-Nasrati and other police officials.
3. Learned Justice of Peace sought comments of S.H.O. Police Station concerned, which were submitted, wherein it was admitted that raid was conducted by the S.H.O., under the command of DSP Circle. He divulged the facts that on receipt of secret information regarding Proclaimed Offenders, namely Safiullah, Farooq, Said Umar sons of Fazal Mehmood, Sultan son of Eid Muhammad, Faraz son of Khair Muhammad, Taimor son of Rajmali Khan, all resident of Takht-e- Nasrati, District Karak, wanted in criminal cases F.L R. No 243 dated 17-7-2011, F.I.R. No, 333 dated 8- 9-2011, F.I.R. No, 25 dated 14-1-2011 and F.I.R. No, 34 dated 2-2-2012; were present in the hills, namely, Spilay Ghar within the limits of Chatta Banda. On receipt of the aforesaid information, further police force was arranged and under the supervision of District Police Officer, Karak, the police officials were deployed; on reaching the aforesaid hills, the Proclaimed Offenders, on seeing the police party, opened indiscriminate firing, in the result of which Habih Noor LHC No, 97 got hit and died on the spot. The report further reveals that the above named Proclaimed Offenders had established a picket, which was a perpetual source of threat and havoc for the local inhabitants; numerous incidents of firing took place from the said shelter, so much so, the residences of the Judicial Officers at Takht-e-Nasrati were also not spared and hit twice. From the above said picket, the court room of Civil Judge-II, Takht-e-Nasrati, was also made target. The above said incident was the result of removal of picket. The S.H.O. Denied the allegation of the complainant qua removal of house hold articles and ablazing the house. He disclosed that the raid was conducted under section 88, Cr.P.C. The Justice of Peace after hearing the parties, dismissed the application, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have illegally raided the house of an aged lady and have burnt the house along with household articles to ashes by spoiling the sanctity of Chadar and Chardiwari. The act of the respondents is the worst example of colourful exercise of power and high handedness. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on PLD 2007 SC 539.
5. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and scanning of record from cover to cover, reveals that the police party on secret information, had arranged a raiding party for arrest of the Proclaimed Offenders, inhabited in the picket, built in the hills namely, Spilay Ghar, within the limits of Chatta Banda Takht-e-Nasrati. During raid the Proclaimed Offenders made indiscriminate firing at police party which resulted into death of Habib Noor LHC No,
97. In consequence whereof, the houses of Proclaimed Offenders were searched. In counterblast, the petitioner brought the complaint before Justice of Peace for registration of case against the respondents for committing theft and house trespass. The fact narrated in the complaint by the petitioner is counter-version of the prosecution case, having counter-blasting effect on F.I.R. No, 37 dated 3-2-2012, wherein precious life of a police officer has been taken by burglars and proclaimed offenders. The entrance of police officials for searching of a house in presence of lady constable could not be termed as trespass and would not constitute a cognizable offence. Lest it prejudice the other remedies of the petitioner, we would like to avoid comments on the veracity of complaint but simultaneously we would not shut our eyes in issuing direction for registration of the case against a large number of police officials.
6. Admittedly an officer incharge of the Police Station is under legal and statutory obligation to record the information provided to him by any person related to the commission of a cognizable offence, without going into its veracity that it is true or false. Likewise section-22-A(6), Cr.P.C.
Empowers Justice of Peace for issuance of appropriate direction to the police authorities concerned, on complaint, for registration of a criminal case. But all .These powers would not be exercised in random manners without application of independent mind. The powers under section 154, Cr.P.C. And section 22-A(6),, Cr.P.C. Are vested in the police authorities and Justice of Peace, respectively, for dispensation of justice, but on the same time, the Court would keep in mind that the said powers are never meant to be exercised in aid of injustice. Indeed, Article .25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. This Article enumerates that any person how high so ever he may be, shall be provided with equal treatment with similar situated person. Police officials are not above the law and they have no impunity under the law and Constitution but in the instant case, record reveals that the local police in performance of their official duties have searched the house of the complainant in the better interest of the public. The peculiar facts enumerated in the. F.I.R.
No, 37, dated 3-2-2012 and the circumstances, if taken in juxtaposition, shall divulge , that the direction for registration of a case against the entire police force i,e, from the level of D.P.O up to Police Constable including the lady police would be a mockery of justice and would amount to a misuse of legal provision of statute.
7. It is a well settled proposition of law that the issuance of an order if would amount to injustice, then the Court has discretion to refuse to pass that order. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment reported in PLD 1965 SC 269 "Tufail Muhammad and others v. Raja Muhammad Ziaullah Khan and another", wherein it was held that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised in aid of injustice. Although there are remedial provisions under section 169, Cr.P.C. And section 182, P.P.C. For lodging false complaint, but the direction for registration of criminal case, most particularly in the instant peculiar circumstances of the case must encourage the wrong doer, and shall demoralize the law enforcing agencies. In the instant case, the mala fide of the petitioner is floating on the surface of the record and the tricky design is palpably visible and the issuance of direction for registration of E a case against the police personnel would be an exercise in aid to injustice, which has never been the intention of legislature in enactment of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The innocent persons would not be forced to go through rigours of multiplicity of proceedings provided by Criminal Procedure Code and Pakistan Penal Code.
8. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner Would not be helpful to him, because it is settled law that in criminal administration of justice each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Rai Ashraf and other v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti" (PLD 2010 SC 691) held that each and every case is to be decided on its particular facts. In Mushtaq Ahmad's case (PLD 1973 SC 418), it was held that everything said in the judgment and most particularly in judgment of criminal cases must be understood with great particularity as having been said with reference to the facts of that case.
' Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported in 1994 SCM R 2213.
9.. Apart from above observation, the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Criminal Procedure Code to lodge a complaint for her redressal which has not been availed by the petitioner,. The constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked if alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party and in light of numerous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, now it is settled law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 would only be exercised on proof of non-availability of adequate remedy. Reference may be made to the Abdur kehman's case (PLD 1987 SC 21) and Allah Bux's case (1987 SCM R 810).
10. For what has been discussed above, the Justice of Peace has committed no illegality or irregularity while refusing the issuance of direction to the S.H.O. Concerned for registration of case against the respondents-officials. Thus, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.