' According to Muhammad Ramzan petitioner, the police had made a raid at his Dera at about 10 p.m. On 9-9-1993, and had taken away certain guests, who were staying with him. They were detained and subjected to torture by the police. On the following day, the police again came and asked the family members to hand him over. It is additionally submitted by Muhammad Ramzan petitioner that when his sisters told the police that he was not there, they were abused, slapped and dragged outside and their clothes were torn. Actually the police was siding with the other side and making a demand that the family of the petitioner should stage exit from the land in their cultivating possession, and when the family members produced before the police stay orders, issued by the Court, the police officials became all the more furious and uttered contemptuous remarks about the legal process. Prayer is that the respondents, namely, the S.H.O. P.S. Sinawan, besides Sh. Umar Ali, Mnzaffar-ud-Din and Abdul Qayyuni be summoned in Court and a case be ordered to be registered against them.
2. Asmat Ullah S.I./S.H.O. And Nazar Abbas A.S.I. Are in attendance and they have presented before the Court copies of two F.LRs, one dated 10-9-1993 under section 506/452/148/149, P.P.C., registered at the instance of Abdul Qayyum, and the other dated 21-9-1993 under section 324/34, P.P.C. In which Ghulam Shabbir is the complainant. A perusal of the aforesaid F.I.Rs, furnishes an indication that, in actual practice, Ramzan, Munawar etc. Are guilty of aggression and have been threatening the other side to leave the land, close-by, in possession of their adversaries and after having administered grave threats to the complainant party in an incident dated 10-9-1993, they, namely Ramzan, Munawar etc. Had subsequently on 21-9-1993 launched an assault, causing fire-arm injuries to Muhammad Ali, who is stated to be still hospitalised.
3. Nazar Abbas, A.S.I. Is investigating the case and according to him the persons named as accused in the two cases (including Muhammad Ramzan petitioner) have not been joining the investigation. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before the Court copies of certain orders showing that Muhammad Ramzan etc. Had been admitted to interim bail, vide order, dated 13-9-1993, and the bail petition had been dismissed in default on 20-9-1993. They applied for restoration of the bail application, and again disappeared, and the subsequent application met the same fate on 12-9-1993.
4. Muhammad Ramzan, amongst others, has involvement in yet another case under section 307/34, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Daulat Gate, Multan, vide F.I.R. No, 126 dated 21-7-1989. By presenting a copy of the said F.I.R. Learned counsel for the respondents wants to show to the Court that Muhammad Ramzan is a desperado and a hardened criminal, and has been playing hide-and- seek with the investigating agency, as also the Courts. According to the police officials, who are present in the Court, Muhammad Ramzan petitioner had never approached the police with a request for registration of a case against those persons, who according to him had played mischief with him and his family members. In so far as the dispute about the land mentioned above is concerned, the same is pending in a civil Court, and will obviously take a long time, before it is filially adjudicated upon by the trial Court.
5. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner is not present before the Court today. He is said to have approached the High Court for the relief of bail, which was conceded to him, the next date in Crl.
Mis. No,1326-B of 1993 being 28-9-1993. So far, according to the respondents, he has not furnished the surety bonds even.
6. I am satisfied that Muhammad Ramzan is abusing the process of Court and is taking shelter behind certain orders passed in his favour from time to time of interim nature by different Courts.
He is specifically named as an accused in the abovesaid criminal cases and has been avoiding association with the process of investigation, and has instead sought indulgence of this Court, by filing a writ petition, which proceeds on premises absolutely infirm and untenable. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs,2,000.