1. This judgment will dispose of the three petitions (W. P. No. 4074/81 W. P. No. 4235/81 and W. P. No. 4362/81) filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. Although the parties are different nevertheless the point involved in all these petitions is common. The petitioners have prayed for a direction by this Court to register a case against the respondents. I shall mention the relevant facts pertaining to each petition, separately.
2. W. P. No. 4074/81 Fazal Din has filed this petition against the Inspector S. D. P, O., S. H. O. Police Station Pattokt, two Constables and four private indi--viduals. At first, the petition came up for hearing before, Sardar Mohammad, J. Learned Judge called for parawise comments, y order dated 24th August 1981, from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and ordered, the petition to be placed before me. At the same time the respondents were directed not to harass the petitioner, his daughter and son-in-law.
2. On 26th September, 1981, I sent for the S. H. O. Pattoki. There after, it was ordered that this petition shall be heard alongwith the connected Writ Petition No. 4235 of 1981. In that petition the S. P. Was directed to look into- the matter personally and submit a report after holding a discrete inquiry.
3. Finally, the present petition was admitted to regular bearing on 22nd November, 1981.
3. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 7 which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pattoki, District Kasur. Case of the petitioner is that people visit his house for amusement purpose. They are entertained by providing them with music and dancing. It is admit--ted by the petitioner that his daughter Ishrat is a dancing girl. She married to one Muhammad Musharaf. Photostat of Nikahnama dated 15thjune, 1981 has been placed on the record.
4. Reference is given an this petition of another writ petition (W. P. No. 2632/81) filed by 47 persons wherein it had been prayed that the police authorities be stopped froth interfering with their business. That petition had already been decided by my order dated 20th June, 1981.
5. It is alleged by the petitioner that the police after the decision of the aforesaid petition in which they denied the allegation against them felt offended and out of sheer malice started harassing the petitioner and others who are in the same business. On 15th August. 1981, the respondents trespassed into the house of the petitioner with mala fide intention. The petitioner, her daughter and son-in-law were intimidated. Thereafter respondents Nos. 5 to 8 ransacked the house of the petitioner. He was robbed of 9 tolas 5 mashas and 3 rattis of gold, details of which are given in para 3 of the petition. It is further alleged that after the dacoity had been committed by the respondents they blackened the faces of petitioner's daughter and son-in-law. They were taken in a procession.
6. This was done to humiliate and insult them, Thereafter the daughter of the petitioner and son-in- law were taken to the Police Station Pattoki where they were manhandled. A medical certificate is also attached to that effect. It is also alleged that reason--dents I and 2 took the law in their own hands. In order to safeguard themselves they registered a case against the daughter and son-in- Taw of the petitioner under section 294, P. P. C. Which case according to the petitioner, is false and is the result of malice of the respondents. Copy of the F. I. R. Pertaining to the aforesaid case has also been placed on the record.
7. Mst. Almas Ishrat and Muhammad Musharaf though charged of a bailable offence were not released by the police. It is further alleged that daughter of the petitioner was taken to an unknown place and kept there for the night. Thereafter application for bail was moved before the 1llaga Magistrate but in vain. Then the petitioner applied to Mr. Asghar Cheema, Magistrate Chunian for grant of bail who on 16th January, 1981 allowed bail to. Almas Ishrat and Muhammad Musharaf. This fact has been mentioned by the petitioner to establish that in case he was to file private complaint that would yield no result. The petitioner has named certain persons who are eye-witness to all this.
8. In these circumstances the petitioner wants a mandate to be issued by this Court for registration of a case against the respondents.
9. W. P. No. 4235/81 Mst. Nasreen has tied this petition against the S. H. O. Pattoki, Moharrir Head Constable and a Constable and 8 others including the S. P. Kasur.
10. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 7, Chak No. 19, Pattoki. This area, according to the petitioner, is known as Red Light Area. Nevertheless, the petitioner claims to be a married woman and asserts that she never indulged in any immoral activities. She admits to be a dancer and singer. She takes parts in dramas. She is an actress by profession. Certificate to that effect is attached to this petition. Her grievance is that the police authorities without any rhyme or reason interfere with her business of singing and dancing.
11. W. P. No. 43621/81 Muhammad Sarwar petitioner is also resident of Ward No. 7 --f Chak 19, Pauoki which place is known as Red light Area. He admits to be connected with the profession of singing and dancing. His griev--ance is that in retaliation to order dated 24th August, 1981 in Writ Petition No. 4074/81 whereby the police officers were directed to submit parawise comments, respondents 1 to 3 sent members of lsiah-e-Moashra, i.e. Respondents 4 to 9 in the locality. They abused the inhabitants and trespassed into the house of petitioner's father. He was robbed of gold. House was set on fire.
12. Petitioner's father went to lodge the report. Instead, a false case under section 307, P. P. C. Etc., was regis--tered against the petitioner and others.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the comments. Annexures attached with these petitions have also been perused. According to the petitioners, they and a few others of their category are in the profession of singing and dancing. Their women--folk entertain customers provide them music and dancing. The police occasionally carries out raids at their premises; catch hold of some customers. They are illegally detained. But eventually they are bailed out.
14. This stance is denied by the police. Its case is that the women of the petitioners sell their person that is why people go to their premises.
15. During the arguments, I called upon the learned counsel for the respondents as to what legal measures had they taken to put an end to this immoral practice. Answer given was that at present the only law applicable is to challan the culprits under the Pakistan Penal Code or the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance, 1961.
16. As already observed, the petitioners refute the allegation of prostitu--tion and insist that they do not indulge in any immoral activities but simply entertain those who choose to visit their, premises for amusement. Their case is that being citizens of this country they have a right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation.
17. In these petitions it is not for me to hold an inquiry about the allegations and counter-allegations.
18. One thing is clear. At present there is no effective law to stop prostitution. This is a matter which needs immediate attention of the law makers.
19. Certain facts are disputed by both sides. These shall be resolved at first, for which preliminary evidence shall have to be recorded. I am, therefore, of the view that in these cases the proper, adequate and effective remedy will be by way of private complaint. With this observation the petitions are disposed of No order about costs.