1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.-- By this petition the petitioner has sought a direction against respondents 1, 2 and 3 to register the F.I.R. Against respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7, for the alleged offences allegedly committed by them under sections 324, 325, 327, 330, 350 and 357. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that on 30-6-1988, the petitioner went to Chanab Hotel to see one Asif Ali of Wazirabad (Punjab) as the petitioner's in laws belonged to Wazirabad. It is alleged that when the petitiOner entered into the above hotel, all of a sudden two policemen, who were present in the lobby caught hold of him and thereafter they took him to C.IA. Centre, Saddar Karachi. It is further alleged that the petitioner was given beating by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and by other two C.I.A. Police constables whose names were JIN and MAKRANI. It is further alleged that due to the above merciless beatings the petitioner's condition deteriorated and on 1-7-1988 the petitioner was allowed to go. It is also alleged that the petitioner returned to his house in a precarious condition in the late night on 1-7-1988 and he informed his father and other members of the family about the above cruelty and torture. On the next day on 2-7-1988, it is alleged that the father of the petitioner took him to the Deputy Inspector-General Police, Sind, Karachi, who after seeing the condition of the petitioner's physique, asked the petitioner's father to make a complaint in writing for action, which was done and the above complaint dated 2-7-1988 was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security, Karachi for enquiry and report within three days. It is also alleged that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Mr. Muhammad Ayub Raja after seeing the injuries sustained by the petitioner directed him to the Chief Medical Officer, Karachi, for medical check-up through letter No, SEC/GEN/317/1988, dated 3-7-1988. It is further averred that one Doctor Muhammad lqbal Sheehar examined the petitioner and found six injuries on the person of the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in Civil Hospital on 4-7-1988 and was discharged on 13-7- 1988 and during the above period several medical examinations were carried out and expensive treatment was given to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner went to lodge the report with respondent No,3, but as respondents Nos. 4 to 7 have influence, the above F.I.R. Was not registered. On the basis of the above averments the petitioner has prayed for the above relief.
2. ' The above petition was admitted for regular hearing on 14-9-1988 and was posted for regular hearing. The case had come up on 20-9-1988, but it was adjourned at the request of Mr. LA.
3. Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent No,4, for today. In support of the above petition, Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that there is material on record prima facie to indicate that the petitioner was subjected to torture by respondents 4 to 7 and that the object was to extract confession from the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the above relief. On the other hand, Mr. A.A. Mohammadally, Acting Advocate-General, Sind, for the official respondents and Mr. I.A. Hashmi, Advocate, appearing for the official respondent No,4 individually have vehemently submitted that the above petition is not bona fide and that no cognizable offence is shown to have been committed by the above respondents 4 to 7 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4. ' In furtherance of their above submissions, they have relied upon the medical certificate issued by the Civil hospital on 3-7-1988, which indicates that the petitioner had three bruises and three complaints of pain at shoulder. On the basis of the above medical certificate, it has been vehemently urged that no cognizable offence prima facie is shown to have been committed in relation to causing of above injuries. As regards the offence under section 330, P.P.C., it has been contended that if in fact respondent No,4 wanted to involve the petitioner, it would have been easy for him either to charge him in the commission of the main offences or undei section 216, P.P.C. And therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No,4 wanted to extract the confession of guilt from the petitioner as to attract section 330, P.P.C., is not founded on material on record and is not tenable. On the other hand, Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner inter alia prima facie disclosed the commission of the alleged offences under sections 330 and 357, P.P.C., which arc cognizable the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. Learned counsel for the parties on both the sides have referred to a number of judgments, which indicate that in some cases the High Court issued direction for the registration of F.I.R and in some cases it declined to issue such a direction. However, it seems that there is unanimity of judicial view on the point that the Court has discretion in the matter as to the issuance of direction for the registration of F.I.R. In a fit case it may issue such direction and in the other case if the facts of the case sol demand it may decline to do so.
5. ' We may observe that in the instant case the medical certificate prima facie indicates that the injuries were simple and, therefore, the alleged offences in respect thereof are non-cognizable and hence no F.I.R. Can be registered in this regard. The other sections which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are sections 330, P.P.C. And 357, P.P.C. The former provides for offence for extracting confession by force, of the guilt of the person from whom such confession is extracted for, which offence is cognizable, whereas the latter makes assault or use of criminal force on any person in an attempt to confine him wrongfully, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both which is also a cognizable offence.
6. ' The case of the official respondents as placed before us is that one of the accused Zafar Iqbal, in F.I.R. No, 285/1988 registered with Ferozabad Police Station disclosed the name of the petitioner. The above accused was arrested at the spot after an encounter with the police which involved killing of one police constable and, therefore, the petitioner was taken to the CIA., Centre for interrogation.
7. We would not like to express on the merits of the alleged offences but we may observe that even if we were to accept the allegations of the petitioner as true, the petitioner will have to file a private complaint in respect of alleged causing of injuries to him and, therefore, there will be two parallel proceedings, one in pursuance of a private complaint and the other in pursuance of F.I.R. If it is to be registered in respect of offences under sections 330, P.P.C. And 357, P.P.C.
8. ' We are, therefore, of the view that if the petitioner is serious to prosecute the alleged offenders, he can file a private complaint in respect of all D the alleged offences and, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise constitutional discretionary jurisdiction to issue a direction for registration of F.I.R.
9. ' Then Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to clauses (b) and (c) of the prayer clause of the petition, whereby, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law regulating the terms and conditions of the service of the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, and further direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to provide protection of law to the petitioner and his family members and to save them from the hands of respondents Nos. 4 to 7. In this regard, it may be pertinent to point out that upon the petitioner's complaint to the D.I.-G., a D.S.P. Was appointed as an enquiry officer who examined respondent No,4 and some other witnesses. The report of the D.S.P. Has been brought on record which indicates that he recommended departmental action against respondent No,4. On the other hand, Mr. IA. Hashmi, Advocate, has placed Photostat copies of certain documents in the Court today, which indicate that after D.S.P. Muhammad Ayub Raja submitted his above report dated 18-7-1988, the Superintendent C.IA. Appointed D.S.P. Mehmudul Hassan Jeffery as an enquiry officer, who in his report recommended no action.
10. ' We may observe that above Mr. Jafferi was appointed as enquiry officer, by the S.P. During the pendency of the above petition after D.S.P. Mr. Mohammad Ayub Raja had already given his recommendation to the D.I-G. In pursuance of his order. It is not clear as to how the S.P. In supersession of the order of the D.I.-G. Ordered second enquiry, while the above petition was pending. We would not like to issue any direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to hold a departmental enquiry against respondents Nos. 4 to 7 but we would observe that copy of this judgment may be sent to the I.-G. Police Sind, who will examine afresh, the question, whether any departmental action is required to be taken against any of the respondents.
11. ' As regards the above other prayer, it will suffice to observe that according to the learned Acting Advocate-General and also as per Mr. IA. Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent 4, the petitioner is not involved in the offences mentioned in the aforesaid F.I.R. And, therefore, in view of the above stand no further direction in this regard is required to be given.
12. ' With the above observations the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.