1. MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.--- Learned counsel for the applicant contents that the order of the learned District Judge has been impugned. wherein the learned District Judge has failed to issue direction of lodging of FIR in respect of the incident reported whereby it was alleged, that the respondents by show of weapon restrained the applicant and thereafter sprinkled petrol on his hey and grains had put it to fire causing the burning of the same. It is further contended on the part of the learned counsel for the applicant taking from reported case of PLD 2007 SC page 539, that an enquiry is liable to be conducted as the allegations were amounting to a cognizable offence and in such circumstances only after investigation the actualities could come to light.
2. Learned counsel for the proposed accused has filed copy of a civil appeal contending that civil dispute between the parties was present and that the dispute between the parties was a civil nature. It is further contended that -no infirmity in the order impugned has been shown by the applicant and that the acquisitions are false. It is also contended that the applicant has not, shown the value of the alleged goods said to have been burdened.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General contends that the applicant had initially made a complaint to the concerned police authority and thereafter approached was made to the learned District and Sessions Judge who has passed an order accordingly. It is further contended that the variation in the report made to the police station and the complaint made before District Judge are present. It is further contended that on account of the details of the incident not being available, it could not be ascertained whether a criminal act has been taken place or the application had indulged in the act himself.
4. In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the ease reported in 2001 SCMR page 1556 contends that in case of cognizable offence investigation is to be made. It is further contended that in the present case investigation is to be made and as such the alternate remedy of private complaint may not be sufficient.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. It bears there from that the act of burning was present however, as to the details of whether the said was in respect of hey or the grains and as such the value thereof and as to who acted in that manner is the dispute. In my humble opinion the said dispute if agitated can be determined by way of a private complaint and in, the present circumstances the investigation as such may not be required for proving any allegation. In the circumstances, the only infirmity seems to be that the learned District and Sessions Judge had not granted the applicant a right to file the private complaint, if so advised.
6. In the circumstances, the instant criminal miscellaneous application is disposed of with a minor variation in the impugned order that the applicant may if interested, file a criminal complaint, if so advised, which shall be entertained if available strictly on merits by the learned concerned Magistrate.
7. The application accordingly stands disposed of.