CH. UAZ AHMAD, J.- Writ Petition No. 9730/97, W.P. No. 9742/97, W.P. No. 9743/97, W.P. No. 9744/97, W.P. No. 9745/97 W.P. No. 9766/97 having common question of law and facts, therefore. I intend to decide these writ petitions through this consolidated judgment order, In all these writ petitions leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that it is the statutory duty of respondents/police officials by virtue of Section 154 Cr.P.C, to register the case but they refused to exercise their statutory duty.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioners. Similar controversy was raised in Muhammad Suleman's case 11994 P.Cr.L.J. 2417) before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the relevant observation is as follow:- The case of the appellant is that the accused having committed a cognizable offence and as such it is the statutory duty of the respondent to have registered a case against him. The contention is devoid of any force. The leamed Judge, after considering the case, declined to exercise the discretion on the ground that adequate remedy by way of lodging a private compliant is available to the appellant for redress of his grievance. No exception can be taken to the observation made by the leamed Judge. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Reference may be made to the case of Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan & others'
(1975 SGMR 149) and the relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follow:- "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, lt 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. The position is too well-known to be reiterated that the Supreme Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and interferes only in cases of grave injustice, the present case being certainly not one of those. The petition is. Therefore, dismissed."
I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Karachi High Court reported as PLD 1997 Karachi 600, Aha/ Hussain v. Government of Sindh and the relevant observation is as follow:- "So far as the contention that alternate remedy must equally be an efficacious remedy is concerned, suffice it to say that, a private complaint can provide an equally adequate relief to the complainant, because he can lead the entire evidence himself before the Court, lt 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 in the present case need not be given by us to the respondents.
3. Lt is admitted fact that all the petitioners have filed applications for registration of a case before the respondents but the respondents failed to exercise their statutory duty . By virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution, it is the duty and obligation of every functionary to act in accordance with law.
4. In the interest of justice and fairplay. Let a copy of writ Petition No. 9736/97, W.P. No. 9743/97, W.P.
No. 9744/97 and W.P. No. 9766/97 be sent to DIG Multan Range, Multan and copy of Writ Petition Nos. 9745/97 & 9742/97 be sent to D.I.G., D.G. Khan, who shall look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.
With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.