ORDERMAMOON KAZI, C.J.- The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner lodged a written complaint with Station House Officer. Gulberg Police Station, Karachi Central (respondent No. 2> alleging participation of six respondents named in the complaint in the murder of his brother. Nasir Hussain, and his nephew. Arif Hussian, who were residing in Block No. 13. Federal B' Area. Karachi. It had been alleged that the said respondents had hatched a conspiracy to commit the said offence.
2. A report in respect of the same transaction had earlier been lodged at Police Station Gadap, Karachi at the instance of S.H.O. Choudhary Muniruddin. But the petitioner wanted his own version to be recorded by respondent No. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that refusal by respondent No. 2 to record his complaint amounts to violation of his Constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law. Therefore, directions are sought against respondent No. 2 for registration of the complaint against the respondents named therein.
2. A report submitted by S.H.O. Gadap Police Station indicates that alter recording of the F.I.R, in the case, the petitioner and his associates at Karachi had failed to provide any assistance in the investigation of the case. Several attempts were made by him to record the statements of the family members of the deceased, but ail in vain.
3. Mr. K.M Nadeein. Learned Additional Advocate General has resisted the petition on the ground that admittedly the petitioner was not in Pakistan when w ritten complaint alleging commission of the said offence was received by respondent No. 2 and. Therefore, a mandatory requirement of section 154 Cr.P.C, had noPbeen complied with by the petitioner, as the information given by him could not be signed bv him as required by the said section. The said section requires that-every information given to a Police Officer in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the person giving it. A question has also arisen whether in every case were the Police Officer Incharge of a Police Station has declined to record an F.I.R., directions'couid invariably be given to him by the Court to record such F.I.R, when an adequate remedy by way'of a private complaint is available to the petitioner.
4. Although. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any earlier judgment of this Court or any other Court on this point, but nevertheless his contention was that the alternate remedv which could be sought bv the petitioner must be equally an 4efficacious, remedy. Reliance in this regard was placed by him upon Ahid Hussain v. Government of Sindh and 3 others /PLD 1984 Karachi 269). Ali Hussain v. Presiding Officer. Special Court for Offences irr respect of Banks at Karachi PLD 1989 Karachi 157) and Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v.
Rent Controller. Lahore (PLD 1992 Lah. 305). However, in the last case, referred to by Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, it was held that when any other appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner, a writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained by the Court.
5. Reference may be made to the cases of Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar and 3 others (PLD 1977 Lah. 424) and Muhammad Zaffcir Iqbal v.Manzoor Ahmad'> 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 265S wherein it had been held that a Police Officer was bound to record an F I.R'., disclosing a cognizable case and such Officer had no lawful.Excuse to decline rn register such F.I.R. However, in Jamshed Ahmed v.
Muhammad Ahram Khan and Another 0975 SGMR 1491. It was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court as under
4. The petition could be thrown out on the short ground that the High Court was under no obligation to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. It was a matter resting entirely in its discretion and there is nothing to indicate that it was improperly exercised. Even otherwise, by no means does the impugned order shut the door on, the petitioner who is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint ...
Reference may also be made to the case of Muhammad Suleman v. Station House Officer. Police Station Civil Lines. Gujramcala (1994 P.Cr L.J. 2417 where a Division Bench of Lahore High Court declined to entertain a petition tiled against a Station House Officer who had refused to register an F.I.R., on the ground that adequate remedy by way of lodging a private complaint was available to the complainant for redress of his grievance. In the case of Wazir Ahmed and others c. Government of Sindh and others (Constitutional Petition No. D-104 88> which had been registered at Sukkur Bench of this Court, a similar question had arisen before a Division Bench of which one of us (the Chief Justice> was a member and while dealing with a similar grievance it was held by the Bench as under:-- It may be pointed out that the relief which can be granted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is purely discretionary and the same can be declined if there is an equally adequate and efficiacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner. No doubt, according to section 154 Cr.P.C., a police officer is bound to record an F.I.R, if the same discloses a cognizable case, as was held in the two judgments of the Lahore High Court to which we have just referred, but the question.Is.
Whether this Court should invariably grant relief to the petitionerin the case by directing the police officer concerned to register the petitioner's F.I.R, when, as pointed out above, there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. In our. View, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and the decision of the Court would depend upon the circumstances of each case..
6. The cases referred to by us in this judgment, therefore. Leave no doubt that whenever an adequate remedy in the form of a private compiaintis available to the petitioner, relief sought by him in the petition may be declined to him. In the present case, the petitioner could have filed a private complaint before the Court having jurisdiction in the matter in case the complaint sent by him to the police was not registered or he was dissatisfied with the investigation of the case, carried out by the former. ApanTroi.. The foregoing, when information is received by a police officer incharge of a police station regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the allegations must be found by him to be priam facie correct before an F.I.R, is registered. But where allegations are made, which, without making an laboratory .Investigation into them, are found hard to believe, provisions of section 154 Cr.P.C, may not be attracted in such case. Therefore, the question, whether discretion must be exercised in favour of a party, in a given case, and directions must be given to - a Police Officer to register an F.I.R.. Would depend upon the circumstances of each case. So far as the contention that alternate remedy-must equally be an efficacious rented}' is concerned, suffice it to say that, a private complaint can provide an equal!}- adequate relief to the complainant.
Because he can lead the entire evidence himself before the Court. It would, therefore, be erroneous to assume that grievance of the petitioner cannot be adequately redressed by filing of a private complaint. We are. Therefore, clearly of the view that the directions sought by the petitioner m the present case need not be given by us to the respondents.
7. In the result, this petition was dismissed by the short order, dated 9.6.1996.