' INAYAT ELAHI KHAN, J.-Muhammad Ibrahim (petitioner) by this writ petition seeks the issuance of a direction to the S. H. O. Police Station, Mansehra to register a case on the basis of the report lodged by him on 17-7-1980 against the persons mentioned therein. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that an occurrence took place on 17-7-1980 at 9-30 a.m. In the office of the Municipal Committee, Mansehra wherein the Chairman, Municipal Committee sustained simple injury.
Regarding the aforesaid incident the Chief Officer Municipal Committee made a report to the police against the petitioner and others and consequently, a case under section 307/353/333/148/149, P. P. C. Was registered against them on 17-7-1980 at 10-30 a.m. However, on the basis of the report lodged by the petitioner regarding the same incident on 17-7-1980 at 2-30 p.m. Against the Chairman and his companions, no case was registered against them. The petitioner and his companions were also medically examined and it was found that the petitioner and one Maqbool ur Rehman sustained simple injuries whereas Habibur Rehman, brother of the petitioner, sustained a fracture of the scaphoid bone of his left hand. But in spite of the fact that the-report of the petitioner was in regard to a cognizable offence, the S. H. O. (respondent No. 1) failed in his duty to register a case against the culprits.
2. The S. H.
0. (respondent No. 1) in his parawise comments took the plea that the incident took place in the office of the Chairman Municipal Committee, Mansehra where the petitioner and others had trespassed and attacked the Chairman and inflicted injuries on his person and since the petitioner etc. Were aggressors and sustained injuries caused by the Chairman and others in self-defence, it was not considered proper to register the case on the basis of the report of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two reports have been lodged in respect of the same incident which involved a cognizable offence and since the report of the petitioner contained a counter-version of the incident, the S. H. O. Was bound to have registered and investigated the case. It is further contended that the Police Officer should have performed his duty by registering the case regarding the counter-version of the incident given by the petitioner and should have left the matter for determination of the court as to which of the parties was the aggressor. The Police Officer has overstepped his functions in deciding upon the innocence or guilt of the culprits involved in two separate and distinct versions of the case. We entirely agree with the learned counsel that the S. H.
0. Was duty bound to register the case when an information regarding the commission of cognizable offence was conveyed to him. Under section 154, Cr. P. C. The report should have been reduced into writing by the officer-incharge of the Police Station and should have been entered in the First Information Report Register: Thereafter the Police Officer was bound to investigate into the offence and in case after the investigation it was found that the evident adduced by the petitioner did not make out a case, he could have submitted a report to the Magistrate for the cancellation of the case. In Ch. Attaullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmed and others (1) it was held that even if the police have made investigation in a case with reference to particular evidence produced by one party, another report with reference to the same incident is no barred. In the circumstances we are of the view that the S. H.
0. (respendent No. 1) has failed in his duty by not registering and investigating the counter-version of the case given in the report of the petitioner. He should not have arrogated to himself the functions of a Court of law to decide upon the question as to which party was the aggressor or that one party had caused injuries to the other in the exercise of their right of self-defence.
4. However, an objection has been taken by the opposite-party that the writ petition suffers from laches and unreasonable delay and thus the petitioner had rendered himself disentitled to the discretionary relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is clear that the incident took place on 17- 7-1980 and after the registration of the case on the report of the Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, investigation was conducted and final report under section 173, Cr. P. C. Was submitted by the police on 25-9-1980. The challan in the aforesaid case was submitted to the Court on 17-12- 1980 which is pending trial, the proceedings whereof have been stayed because of this writ petition.
The present writ petition was filed in this Court on 20-12-1981 after a delay of about 17 months from the date of the occurrence. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been making representations to the authorities concerned for seeking redress out of court. A reference to various applications moved by the petitioner in this behalf would show that first application was, addressed by him to the President of Pakistan on 8-9-1981. The other for applications have been addressed to, various authorities on one and the same date i. e. 10-12-1981. Thus it is clear that for more than one year after the- occurrence the petitioner has done nothing for seeking his redress.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on some authorities Where the laches in filing writ petitions have been condoned for sufficient cause. In Begum Durab Sultana etc. v. Custodian etc. (2), delay of some 22 years in filing the writ petition condoned by the High Court was not interfered with by the Hon'able Supreme Court. The facts of the ,case are distinguishable because in the said case an earlier writ petition filed in 1958 had been withdrawn in 1959 for the reasons that the owner wished to seek other remedy and subsequently considerable period was consumed in answering the reference by the Custodian and the petitioners had been pursuing the matter in the proceedings relating to the execution of the decree of sale. In the circumstances it was held that the High Court had for good ref earns decided to ignore the laches. In the present case no reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the writ petition.
5. It is well-established that the extraordinary powers of judicial review are not exercised in favour of a party who is guilty of laches or delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. It is clear that the petitioner. Has no explanation for the inordinate delay which has taken place before {FOONOTE}}
(1) 1973 P Cr. L (2) 1983 SCM R 13 filing the present writ petition. The relief in the writ jurisdiction being discretionary we do not feel inclined to condone the delay in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition being barred by laches, is hereby dismissed with no order as to. Costs.