The petitioner through this writ petition has sought a direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 for registration of a case against respondents Nos.3 to 8. The respondent No.2 was directed to submit a report. The order was complied with. The said respondent has taken up the position that the matter was looked into and the petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations. Thereafter the petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. They have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that respondent No. 2 was under legal obligation to register a case on the written complaint made by the petitioner and appended as Annexure `F/1'.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General states that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations, therefore police did not register the case. While the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 8 has argued that the complaint was mala fide and if the allegations in this writ petition are compared with the allegations in Annexure `F/1' then it becomes clear that the allegations are false. It is added that in any case the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of private complaint, therefore, resort to this writ jurisdiction is not proper. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to the cases of Ch. Shah Muhammad v. S.H.O. Police, City Police Station, Rahimyar Khan and 2 others PLD 1976 Lah. 1412; Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 others PLD 1977 Lah. 424; Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. Station House Officer, Police Station Shorkot and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1323; Muhammad Ijaz v. The, S.H.O., Police Station Rajana, Faisalabad 1979 SCMR 490 and Suleman v. The S.H.O., P.S. Mitha Tiwana, District Sargodha and 2 others 1982 P Cr. L J 125.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The respondent No.2 has already submitted the report to the effect that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations. In this view of the matter, even if now a direction is made to him, it will not serve any useful purpose. On the other hand, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of private complaint. The same in the given circumstances, is more, adequate and appropriate.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, petitioner can resort to remedy of private complaint.
M.A.K./M-553/L