The petitioners in this Constitutional petition have prayed for the issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 Station House Officer, Police Station Kot Moman, Tehsil Bhalwal. District Sargodha to register a case against respondents Nos.2 to 9. Their, grievance is that about 20 days prior to the institution of this petition the said respondents, while armed with guns, hatchets and `Lathis' trespassed into their houses, constructed on a parcel of land measuring one acre situate in village Kot Moman, alongwith tractor and trollies; demolished their houses and gave severe beating to the petitioners as also their women-folk and children and removed the household articles and animals. They did contact the respondent-S.H.O. For the registration of a case but he refused to do so which necessitated the institution of this petition on 1-10-1990.
2. It appears that after the receipt of copy of this petition from this Court the Station House Officer had the matter inquired into and recorded the statements of some persons belonging to either side. The respondent-S.H.O. Also submitted parawise comments to the writ petition and opined that the disputed acre of land is owned by respondents Nos.2 to 9; petitioners had not constructed any house thereon; one or two Katcha rooms appear to have been constructed at a place measuring about 7/10 Marlas in the disputed acre of land which was in the occupation of petitioner-Ramzan for the last about 10/15 years. Further, that no occurrence, as alleged, had taken place and that the photographs appended to the writ petition indicating the location of petitioners' houses `pertain to some other place and material, which having no bearing whatsoever about the present petition, have been obtained just to strengthen their case which is otherwise devoid of any force'. It was also stated in the comments that he was not contacted by the petitioners for the redress of their alleged grievance and therefore, question of `alleged failure of police in initiating relevant legal action in the matter is misconceived'.
3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 9 has tried to controvert the factual pleas taken by the petitioners and stated that they have no right or title to continue with their possession over the disputed parcel of land and that it is not a fit case to direct the respondent-Station House Officer to register a case against his clients as the inquiry into the matter by the respondent-S.H.O. Shows that no such occurrence ever took place.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 9 and perused the available record. I am of the view that nothing would turn on the result of alleged investigation conducted by the respondent-Station House Officer prior to the registration of a case. There is no gainsaying that if the allegations in the first information report are found to be false during the investigation, the respondent-Station House Officer will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners for having supplied incorrect information. This can however, be done only after the case has been registered and investigation conducted according to law. It may also be noticed that respondents Nos.2 to 9 have not controverted the allegations in the writ petition's by filing a written statement although this petition was admitted to regular hearing on 27-11-1990. In this view of the matter their plea that no such' occurrence, as alleged by the petitioners, took place, cannot be accepted. The respondent-Station House Officer has specifically stated in the comments against para. 6 of the petition that he has yet to record the statements of some of the petitioners and that before the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners had not contacted him for the redress of their grievances.
5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. Respondent No-1 is directed to record the statements of the petitioners or any one of them and proceed to register a case in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.