' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- When this writ petition was filed, the office raised objection as to its entertainment directly before this Court in view of the remedy available to the petitioner within the meaning of section 22-A, Cr-.P.C. And when at the request of the petitioner, the matter was placed before the Bench as objection case (Diary No,6538/2013), the following order was passed on 28-5- 2013:-- "In view of typical situation of the case, office objection is overruled."
2. Thereafter, in view of the direction noted hereinabove, the office has entertained the Constitutional petition before this Court and assigned a number to the same.
3. The report and parawise comments from respondent No,2 were called for.
4. Today, when the case was called, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked to justify the direct filing of the Constitutional petition before this Court without availing the remedy provided to the person like petitioner by means of section 22-A, Cr.P.C., the learned counsel by making reference to the case of Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others' (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) has argued that notwithstanding the remedy provided before learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, there is no bar in filing a direct Constitutional petition before this Court. The relevant portions of the judgment which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are re-produced hereinbelow:-- "In this view of the matter if an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace can issue the desired direction under section 22-A (6), Cr. P. C. Activating the available legal remedy or procedure which the High Court would also have done if seized of a writ petition filed in that regard under Article 199 of the Constitution then the remedy before an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Can ordinarily be termed and accepted as an adequate alternate statutory remedy ousting a direct recourse by an aggrieved person to the High ' Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution."
"It is, therefore, declared that in the matters of complaints against the working of the police covered by the provisions of section 22-A(6), Cr. P. C. An aggrieved person, except where the High Court feels satisfied that it is an exceptional case arising out of extraordinary---circumstances warranting direct interference by the, High Court and rendering the remedy under section 322-A (6), Cr. P . C . Inadequate , cannot file a writ petition before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution before availing of the normally adequate alternate statutory remedy before an Ex- Officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C."
' When asked to show the exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances warranting direct interference by this Court on rendering the remedy under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. As an inadequate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any such justification.
5. While filing the present Constitutional petition before this Court, by means of para No,7 of the memo of the petition, the petitioner has shown the following reason for direct filing of this petition before this Court:-- "That as there Is no other efficacious or alternate remedy cvailable to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court."
6. By joint reading of the above justification and the order dated 28-5-2013 when this Court dealt with the office objection, it is not clear as to what are the extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances available in this case, justifying the direct filing of this Constitutional petition before this Court.
7. Since the petitioner has failed to show any justification in direct filing of the Constitutional petition before this Court in presence, of an adequate and efficacious remedy as provided under section 22-A Cr.P.C., the present petition is not entertainable and proceedable before this court, the same is, therefore, dismissed.