' SHAHANWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through captioned constitution petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-- "(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos,2 to 4 to provide protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioner and his other family members at the hands of private respondents Nos, 6 to 11 and their well-wishers.
(b) To direct the respondents Nos,3 to 5 may be directed not to register any false criminal case/FIR against the petitioner and his other family members at the behest of private respondents Nos,6 to 11 and restrain them not to cause any sort of harassment against them and to call them in person for taking PR bond for not taking law into their own hands and also taking illegal money to the tune of Rs.50,000/- of each motorcycle in excessive.
(c) To grant any other relief which may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
2. Relevant facts narrated in instant petition that petitioner had purchased six motorcycles from private respondents Nos,6 to 11 on credit basis and he has paid the entire amount and there is nothing outstanding against him, even then the respondents are demanding Rs.50,000/- for each motorcycle from petitioner. It is further averred that respondents Nos,6 to 11 are black mailing the petitioner by demanding more amount of Rs.300,000/-, to which petitioner has refused to pay the same, whereupon they issued threats for dire-consequences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents are influential persons and have been issuing serious threats to the petitioner and compelling him for payment of further amount which is not due against them, while official respondents are issuing threats to him that in care of non-payment of the demanded amount, he will be implicated in false cases; that the right to life and protection is guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, hence strict restraining directions may be issued against the respondents from causing harassment.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondent No,8 namely Ali Gohar made his appearance before this Court and submits that there is outstanding amount of motorcycles against the petitioner and since a year, he has been demanding the same, but petitioner instead of paying the outstanding amount, has filed instant petition against them on the false pretext of causing harassm ent. He further submits that he, being a senior citizen, neither had caused any kind of harassm ent to the petitioner nor intends to do so in future. He further emphasized that petitioner with ulterior motives to usurp his amount, has filed instant petitioner, while respondents had never approached the area police for recovery of said amount, hence instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned Asstt.A.G has vehemently contended that petitioner has filed instant petition on the false pretext with sole purpose to cause harassment to the private respondents and avoid the outstanding due against him, however, he filed statements of respondents Nos,4 and 5, which are taken on record.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG and respondent No,8 in person and examined the material available on the record.
7. Perusal of record reflects that petitioner had purchased six motorcycles on credit basis from the private respondents who are dealing with business of motor cycles. Allegedly, there is outstanding amount of Rs.50,000/- in each for six motor cycles, total amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- against the petitioner. Respondent No,8, who is a senior citizen, has categorically denied the allegations for causing harassm ent to the petitioner regarding recovery of outstanding amount.
8. Conversely, official respondent No,4 SIP Muhammad Shareef Jandan, SHO PS-C Section and respondent No,5 SIP Abdul Hameed Indhar, SHO PS Airport, have filed their statements and they vehemently denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner for causing him any kind of harassm ent. They further stated that neither respondents had approached them by preferring any complaint against the petitioner nor they ever called the petitioner for settlement of the accounts.
9. Indeed, Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 provides safeguard to the rights of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law to ensure the enjoyment of life with the protection and safety. Article 4(2)(a) of the Constitution envisages that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. It is incumbent upon the Court to examine the set of allegations prudently, and if prima facie reflects that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and matter involves factual controversy, High Court should not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the complaining party. In the case in hand, dispute pertaining to the settlement of accounts falls within the ambit of factual controversy which could not be decided until recording evidence of the parties supported with relevant documents, thus petitioner cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under the garb of causing the harassment by private respondents. Conversely, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, and instead of paying the outstanding dues to respondents, he has filed instant petition on the false grounds of causing harassment by the respondents with sole purpose to defeat their legal demands.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances referred supra, petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuance of directions to the official respondents as prayed through instant petition.
Consequently, instant petition stands dismissed being devoid of any substance.