This writ petition was moved by the petitioner for the registration of a case against respondents Nos.3 to 8 on the ground that they committed trespass into the house of the petitioner on 12-8-1996 at 4-00/5-00 p.m. And thereby demolished eastern and southern walls of -his house occupied by his tenants. The petitioner tried to get the case registered but without any effect, hence this petition was instituted.
2. A copy of this petition was sent to respondent No. VSHO, Police Station, Qutabpur, Multan for his comments, which have been received and placed on record. It is submitted in the comments that one of the witnesses cited by the petitioner namely Muhammad Amin has denied the occurrence as alleged in this petition. It was further submitted that an inquiry was held on the petition moved by Abdul Aziz petitioner before the SSP on 15-8-1996. It was also found that there was no substance in contents of that petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that comments/report of the SHO was misleading and incorrect. In this respect it was contended that a suit was filed by respondents regarding the property in question, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the appeal filed was also dismissed by the District Court, while disposing of the application of temporary injunction.
Feeling aggrieved and frustrated due to the decision against them in Civil Court, the respondents took to the highhandedness by depriving the petitioner of his property by taking forcible possession of the same.
4. I have considered the foregoing submission and find that the suit filed by the respondents against Muhammad Amin etc. Related to passage and not to a house, which was the subject- matter of this writ petition. As such no analogy can be drawn from the subject-matter of the civil suit with that of the matter involved in this writ petition. The inquiry conducted by the police also leads to the same conclusion that the subject-matter of this petition is different than the subject- matter of the civil suit. The police report further shows that the case was false and denied by one of the witnesses cited by the petitioner in this writ petition. In such a situation, there in no ground to issue any direction for the registration of a police case. The petitioner shall however, be at liberty to bring any complaint regarding his grievance before a Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised.
5. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.