Petitioner through this constitutional petition seeks a direction to be issued to the S.H.0., P. S. Daska, respondent No. 1, to register a case against respondents Nos.2 to 5 (respondent No. 5 since deceased).
2. Facts as set out in the writ petition, briefly stated are that on 20-6-1986 at about 7-30 a.m.
Respondents Nos.2 to 5 variously armed trespassed into the house of the petitioner and caused injuries to her husband Sardar Muhammad and her two sons Amjad and Ashraf. Amjad appeared before Salamat Ali A.S.I., P.S. Daska on the same day and reported the occurrence to him. A.S. I.
Recorded the statement of Amjad and finding that it prima facie disclosed a case under section 326/452/34, P.P.C. Sent the same to the Police Station for necessary action. The police, however, took no action on his report and instead registered a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Against the petitioner's husband and her two sons aforementioned on a report of Muhammad Ilyas respondent /complainant on the allegation that they had caused injuries to Muhammad Siddiq. The injured Muhammad Siddiq subsequently expired with the result that the offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was converted into one under section 302/34, P.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the S.P. Sialkot for registration of a case against the respondents but no action was taken. Petitioner, therefore, approached this Court with the present petition.
Report was called for from the S.H.O., P.S. Daska, who has submitted the same and stated therein that on the petitioner's application addressed to the S.P. Sialkot "a probe was held but the petitioner could not be able to establish her case/averments made in the said application". S.H.O. Has further submitted in the report that during investigation of the case under section 302, P.P.C., petitioner's husband and sons were found aggressors.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Additional Advocate- General for the State. Learned Additional Advocate-General on perusal of the police file submits that Salamat Ali A.S.I. Who recorded the statement of Amjad at 11-30 a.m. Had earlier recorded the statement of Ilyas respondent at 8-30 a.m. On the same day in the Civil Hospital, Daska, and on the basis of that statement, a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was registered at P.S. Daska at 8-45 a.m. Vide F.I.R. No. 416 of 1986. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate-General that Muhammad Ilyas also produced before the A.S.I. Medico-legal reports bearing No. 338/86 relating to Muhammad Siddiq (deceased respondent), No. 339 of 1986 relating to Muhammad Hussain and No. 340 of 1986 relating to Ilyas himself. Learned Additional Advocate-General also states that the record shows that Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Ilyas were medically examined between 9-00 a.m. And 9-15 a.m. On 20-6-1986. Submission of the learned Additional Advocate---General brings out a discrepancy between the timings of. Medical examination of Muhammad Siddiq etc. And registration of the case under section 307/34, P.P.C. But it is neither necessary nor proper to go into the-question, at this stage, in the present proceedings.
Learned counsel for the complainant points out that the investigation in the case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Has since been completed and the challan submitted in the Court. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the circumstances aforementioned and particularly the fact that the challan in the case under section 302/34, P.P.C has already been submitted in Court and that an alternative remedy of filing a private complaint is available to the petitioner. I am not, inclined to issue the direction prayed for by her. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations that the petitioner, if, so advised, may file a private complaint.