' Muhammad Tufail alias Yaseen son of Shafi Muhammad, petitioner has sought a direction to the local police for registration of a case under sections 363, 364-A and 365, P.P.C. For abduction of his son Habibullah aged 12/13 years.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition, briefly, are that labibullah son of the petitioner who was aged about 13 years went to the market for purchasing certain domestic articles on 13-9- 1996 but did not return. On account of his ailment the petitioner could not approach the local police for registration of a case. He, however, filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pattoki on 14-10-1996 complaining abduction of his son and report was entered into the daily diary of the local police station but no formal case was registered. According to him, his son has been abducted by the respondents Nos.3 to 5 or by someone else on account of the grudge of respondents Nos.3 to 5 as the petitioner had divorced their sister Shamim Akhtar. After the divorce civil and criminal litigation ensued between the parties and respondents Nos.3 to 5 had been threatening the petitioner with dire consequences on account of divorcing their sister Shamim Akhtar. The local police had failed to do their duty under section 154, Cr.P.C. Hence this petition.
3. Report was called for from the local police which submitted the circumstances in detail and pointed out that no such occurrence had ever taken place and the petitioner's claim was visibly false. As such no case was required to be registered.
4. D.S.P. Pattoki was required to examine the matter afresh and submit his report once again.
According to his latest report no evidence is available to show that the allegations made in the petition were correct and this seems to be a counterblast on the part of Tufail petitioner to cause harassm ent to Shamim Akhtar, his former wife and her relatives.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when events regarding commission of certain offence are narrated before the police it is their duty to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation. As such the police had no mandate in law to initiate investigation before registration of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 6 and the learned A.A.-G., however, pointed out that the report to the Assistant Commissioner lodged by the petitioner after a month of the alleged abduction shows and shows very clearly that this was a fake complaint and was made to avenge his grievance against Shamim Akhtar who had filed a suit for maintenance of her children and had obtained a decree for Rs,70,00l against the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel if a son of the petitioner aged about 12/13 years had been abducted as alleged by him, there was no earthly reason for not lodging a report immediately with the local police. The delay of one month speaks volumes against the petitioner that this is a deliberate and well-thought device to ridicule the other side.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. Police has been persistently reporting right from initiation of these proceedings that no such occurrence had taken place and that no evidence was available with the petitioner to support his contention. As such the demand of A the petitioner for registration of a case was mala fide and was meant to harass Shamim Akhtar and her relatives for having filed a suit for maintenance and obtaining a decree against the petitioner. It is not every case in which the High e Court is obliged to order registration of a case as held in Muhammad ljaz V. The S.H.O., Police Station Rajana, Faisalabad 1979 SCM R 490. In this view of the matter the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a complaint, if so advised. C The petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above remarks and the petitioner is left to file a complaint, if he so likes.