2. Claiming that Riaz Ahmad petitioner, Pervaiz Iqbal/Javaid lqbal co-accused and two other persons of their party namely Arshad and Noor (Arshad Pervaiz and Noor Muhammad) had also been injured in the occurrence and that the assault was mounted in the first instance by Khushi Muhammad party, the police were approached to register a counter-F.I.R. Having failed, the petitioner has moved the writ petition soliciting a direction to the police to register the counter- case. Report was called from the police. They have submitted one, and according to their report, the injuries to the petitioner's side had been explained in the F.I.R. Lodged by Khushi Muhammad, even if there were firearm injuries which were not explained in the said F.I.R. The petitioner party being the aggressor Khushi Muhammad's party had caused the same in self-defence and so in the circumstances of the case registration of counter-F.I.R. Was not called for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended t: rat under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is the statutory duty of the police to register a case if cognisable offence is alleged or made out. Riaz Ahmad, Arshad and Noor were having fire-arm injuries according to their medico-legal reports, only blunt weapon injuries to the petitioner side were mentioned in the F.I.R. Of Khushi Muhammad, so case should have been registered and plea investigated. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seems to lose the sight of the fact that the plea was raised before the police when the occurrence was under investigation (vide F.I.R. No. 194 of 1989 of Khushi Muhammad) and found to be without substance.
Correct reference has. Therefore, been made by the learned counsel for the respondents to Ch. Shah Muhammad v. S.H.O. Rahim Yar Khan and 2 others 1977 P Cr. L J 2. Considering the provisions of sections 154 and 157, Cr.P.C. And Rules 24(1) and 24(4) of Punjab Police Rules, it was observed: "In that view of the matter, if the police, suspecting that there was no reasonable ground for recording the F.I.R. Or making the investigation has refused to proceed in the matter, the action of the police cannot be said to be without lawful authority. Moreover, the petitioner, in my opinion, has also a remedy, if he is so advised, to file a complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction". The petition seeking the registration of the case was dismissed in limine.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Haleem Sarwar v. S.H.O. Police Station Head Marala and 2 others 1984 P Cr. L J 2993 and Ghulam Hussain v. Siraj-ul-Haq and others 1987 P Cr. L J 1214 to stress the point that police in any case is bound to register the case, though in the end it may cancel the same. The tenor of discussion in the former authority seems to support his argument.
With utmost respect at my command, it may be said that the Courts are not to write mere essays in futility. A prayer granted without any real relief to the litigant would be an unnecessary expense of time and labour to all concerned. It is particularly so when the preponderance of judicial opinion is that where equally efficacious and alternate remedy to approach the competent Court is available, writ may not necessarily issue. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the following:
(i) Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 197 P SC M R 149, (ii) Muhammad Ijaz v. S.H.O. Police Station Rajana 1979 SCMR 490, (i.e) Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436,
(iv) Mushtaq Ahmad v. S.H.O. Police Station, Munawan 1984 P Cr. L J 1454 and (v) Allah Ditta and 3 others v. S.H.O. Baseerpur and 3 others PLD 1987 Lahore 300.
5. If the petitioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion of the police reached during the investigation of the case reported by Khushi Muhammad, rejecting his (petitioner's) version of the occurrence, he may avail the alternate and rather more efficacious remedy of filing complaint in the competent Court, S where evidence can be recorded and factual position appreciated. The police having already not found any substance in the version of the petitioner, the issuance of writ directing the registration of the case would in the end be of no help to the petitioner.
6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.