1. ' AJMAL MIAN, J.--Office objection is overruled. This petition has been fixed for Katcha Peshi but since the notice has been served on the respondent and the Advocate-General, we dispose of the main petition as well as Misc. Application.
2. ' The petitioner through this petition has sought a direction to respondents particularly to respondent No,3 i.e, Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, Karachi to register the F.I.R. In respect of the 'allegation contained inter alia in paragraph 10 of the petition which reads as follows:- "10. That since the petitioner has been deprived of the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac), one Revolver of his father and four golden bangles and also Rs,20,000 have been extorted by way of illegal gratification and since the petitioner has seen the most miserable days of his life while in police custody And received bodily and mental tortures at the hands of M.A.Rind Sub-Inspector and three others and since in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner and his brother and other friends the respondent No,3 and other functionaries of the State are not prepared to even listen to the petitioner and to take down a complaint of the petitioner and since it is the constitutional and legal right of the petitioner to get a report incorporated in the 154 Book, as laid down under Section 154 Cr.P.C. And since it is the Constitutional right of a citizen of Pakistan to get redress about the high handedness of the Police Department, this constitutional petition is filed on the following grounds."
3. ' Notice of this petition was issued to the learned Advocate-General. In response to which Mr. Abdur Rahim Kazi, A.A.G. Is present and submits the comments of respondent No,4 in which he has denied the allegations contained in the petition. He has also referred to an unreported order dated 25-8- 1986 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,600/1986 dismissing the petition, in limine with the observation that the petitioner should file a private complaint. The above order does not indicate what was the nature of the alleged offence in the aforesaid constitutional petition.
4. ' It may be observed that constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and the Court may decline to exercise the same for the reason that a petitioner has alternate adequate remedy or for any other reason if the dictates of justice so demand.
5. In the instant case the allegations made are of serious nature and if they are true, the same prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to approach the police station concerned for getting his F.I.R. Registered, which could have been disposed of by the police station concerned in accordance with law.
6. ' We, therefore, direct respondent No,3 to cause registration of F.I.R. Of the petitioner at the police station concerned. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.