Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 for the registration of a case against respondents 3 to 6 for the alleged offences committed by them. Vide order, dated 18-5-1991, respondent No.1 was directed to submit report. After the perusal of the report submitted by the said respondent, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. The petition was fixed for final hearing on 16-9-1991, when it appeared that respondents 3 and 4 had not been served. On 28-9-1991, the said respondents 3 and 4 appeared and sought time to file written replies, which was allowed. They have filed the written replies and the Law Officer has appeared to assist this Court in the disposal of this petition.
2. The replies submitted by respondents 3 and 4 have been perused. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the Law Officer have been heard. Respondents 3 and 4 are present in person. They have also been heard. None has appeared for respondents 5 and 6, although they were represented by Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Advocate. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
3. Briefly stated, the allegations mentioned in the writ petition, are that on the night intervening 13th/14th March, 1991, respondent No.3 alongwith the remaining respondents trespassed into the house of the petitioner and forcibly took away his son Zafar Iqbal and thereafter he was belaboured as is apparent from the medico-legal report and after taking Rs.3,000 as ransom he was h. Released on 25-3-1991. On 26-3-1991, Zafar Iqbal was medically examined and the doctor found 18 injuries on his person, all simple caused with blunt weapon.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the averments made in the petition are being corroborated by credible evidence as well as by the medico-legal report of Zafar Iqbal that the respondents without any legal justification entered the house of the petitioner and took away his son who was not involved in any case and the report submitted by respondent No.1 concedes this fact, but on errofeous application of law, the police declined to 8 register the case on the ground that it does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, whereas trespass by itself is cognizable offence and then keeping in illegal confinement per se is an offence, apart from other offences.
5. The learned Law Officer has opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has got an adequate legal remedy in the form of a criminal complaint, hence the present writ petition is not competent. Respondents 3 and 4, present in Court, have conceded that in cognizable cases, the police can enter into investigation.
6. I do not want to express my opinion on the veracity or otherwise of the allegations mentioned in the writ petition, lest it may prejudice either party, suffice it to say that I am inclined to direct the police (respondent No.2) to register the case on the application of the petitioner and then it would be for the investigating officer to look into the correctness or falsehood of the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. Accordingly respondent No.2 is directed to register the case in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner and then proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. This petition is accepted, but due to the peculiar nature of the facts the parties are left to bear their own costs.