1. Hakim Muhammad Ahmad petitioner has moved this Constitution petition praying for a direction to be issued to the Police Officer for registration of a case against the accused. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before learned Judge Family Court at Kasur. Similarly, respondent No.1 Shaheen Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against the petitioner before the same Court. Suit of respondent was dismissed while that the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed by the learned Family Court Kasur.
2. Two separate writ petitions were filed by the respondent before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties made statements before this Court whereby they withdrew their suits. According to the learned counsel after withdrawal of their suits petitioner and respondent are husband and were by operation of law. In the meantime, respondent No.1 in collusion with some other people instituted a suit for dissolution of her marriage before learned Judge, Family Court Depalpur. The allegation is that respondent No.4, Muhammad Ahmad Khan visited Depalpur Bar Room disclosing that he was the husband of respondent No.1. The respondents Nos.5 and 6 were thus engaged as counsel to file a suit on behalf of respondent No.1 for dissolution of her marriage against the petitioner. It is stressed that said respondents have committed several offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner, therefore, prays for registration of a case against the accused.
2. The case of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is that at the request of respondent No.4, they accepted the brief on behalf of respondent No.1 to conduct the case before learned Judge Family Court, Depalpur. The stand taken by respondent No.4 is that he never appeared before the learned Judge, Family Court nor he visited the local bar room. In support of his plea, he has placed on record an affidavit sworn by Mr. Kanwar Saeed Ahmad, an Advocate of Okara. It is argued that they have committed no offence and that petitioner has already moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. For setting aside the ex parte decree having been obtained by respondent No.1 by committing fraud and misrepresentation. This application is still pending adjudication. The argument is that until and unless the application referred to above is decided according to law, no direction can be issued to the police for registration of a case. The admitted position is that the matter is still sub judice before learned Judge Family Court, Depalpur (Shabbir Hussain Chaudhry).
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no grievance against respondents Nos.5 and 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the dispute between the parties is still pending adjudication before the learned Judge Family Court. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Pending before him as early as possible. In case he comes to the conclusion that some offence has been committed, he may proceed in the matter against the accused in the light of the provisions contained in sections 195 and 476, Cr.P.C.
4. The file of the lower Court shall immediately be sent back through a special messenger. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.