1. ' By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-- "(a) To direct the respondent No,1 to register the F.I.R. Of the petitioner against the above named accused, as the cognizable offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 452, 454, 506/2, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
(b) To grant any other just and equitable relief as deemed fit by this Honorable Court under the circumstances of the case."
2. ' The brief relevant facts of the case are that on 1-8-1998 at about 7 a.m., when the petitioner, his father Haji Masoori Khan, his brother Haji Maurzado and other family members were available at their house. Five private persons three of whom were armed with Kalashnikov and two with T.T.
3. Pistol, along with ten members of police, duly armed with their services weapons, criminally trespassed their house. They abused, maltreated the petitioner, his other family members, and even misbehaved with the womenfolk. Such incident was witnessed by two persons of the area viz. Gulab and Panjoo. During this occurrence the attacking party looted, cash, gold and silver ornaments, snatched Rado Watch of Sikander Ali and also took away cattles viz. 8 buffaloes, 10 she goats and 6 sheep. In addition to this while returning the police personnel also took away along with them Haji Masoori and Haji Maurzado with threats to teach them a lesson. This unlawful action of the attacking party constituted a cognizable offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 452, 454, 506/2, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
4. Ordinance, 1979, but when the petitioner wanted to lodge such F.I.R., respondent No,1 refused to register the same, resulting in the filing of the present petition.
5. ' The respondents as well as learned A.A.-G. Were put to notice of this petition, whereupon the respondent No,1 filed his statement along with copies of several F.I.Rs, and other documents on 4- 9-1998. On 1-10-1998 he also filed his affidavit in Court, wherein the respondent No,1 disclosed that the whole story as narrated by the petitioner in his petition, is false and concocted and actually on 1-8-1998 at 5-45 p.m. On the basis of spy information, that some out-laws and absconders of Police Station Mouladad and other police stations are available at the Otak of the petitioner's father, after due entry No,22, they reached the Otak of the petitioner's father and found four criminals escaping, on enquiries the brother of the petitioner disclosed their names as Deedar Panhwar, Wali Muhammad Chandio, Makhno Khoso and Booro Chandio. This information given by the father and brother of the petitioner, had made out an offence under section 21 of the Hudood Ordinance against them as such they were arrested under a proper Mashirnama and F.I.R. No,58 of 1998 was registered against them at Police Station Modulated. In addition to this the respondent No,1 further disclosed that the petitioner is already an accused in Crime No,21 of 1973 with the same police station for an offence under sections 307, 342, 506/2, P.P.C. And his father is also accused in the same crime as well as in other Crimes Nos.51 of 1974 and 52 of 1974 of Police Station, Modulated, copies of certain other documents have also been filed to paint the character of the petitioner and his other family members as criminals.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has contended that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner that he shall be dealt with in accordance with law and for this purpose his statement shall be recorded by the police and on the basis of such statement an F.I.R. Shall be registered as required under section 154, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner has already submitted a proposed F.I.R. Along with the petition, which indicates that a cognizable offence is made out against all the fifteen culprits as named in para.3 of the petition. Learned counsel has placed his reliance on the case-law reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Senior Superintendent of Police and another 1989 PCr.LJ 1129.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned A.A.-G. Has controverted these arguments and submitted that an adequate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing a direct complaint for his grievance and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable in law. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and it cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. Referring to the facts of this petition learned A.A.-G. Submitted that this petition is mala fide and the only object of the petitioner is to pressurize the respondent No,1, so that investigation of the Crime No,58 of 1998 against the petitioner's family members may be hampered, to support his submission he has placed his reliance on the following case-law:--
(1) Jamsheed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149.
(2) Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 others PLD 1977 Lah.
8. 424.
(3) Wazeer Ahmad v. S.H.O., Police Station Mehboob Kalhoro and others 1990 PCr.LJ 2006.
(4) Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another PLD 1997 Kar.
9. 600.
10. ' Mr. Bilal Khan Buriro, Advocate representing respondent No,1, has submitted that this petition has been filed by the petitioner with an ulterior j motive, for obstructing the investigation of Crime No,58 of 1998 Police Station Mouladad, against the father and brother of the petitioner, and also other criminal case of the same police station registered against the petitioner and his other family members and thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record as well as the case-law referred before me.
12. ' Now the crucial point for determination before me is whether in a case of like nature, where relief for direction to register F.I.R. Is sought, it is obligatory for the Court to grant such relief and issue necessary direction for registration of F.I.R. In each case.
13. ' Before examining this point, with the reference to the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be proper to discuss and examine some relevant case-law on this subject.
14. ' In the case of Jamsheed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram and another 1975 SCMR 149, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with the question of exercise of writ jurisdiction for directions to register a F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Has observed 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."
15. ' In the case of Haji Muhammad Khan v. Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 others PLD 1977 Lah. 424 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has observed as under:-- "The principle of law that has been enunciated in the Intra-Court Appeal No,31 of 1976 is, however, unexceptionable. The exercise of power under Article 199 of the Constitution is subject to the condition that there is no adequate remedy provided by law. Such an adequate remedy is provided to a complainant under section 190 read with sections 200 to 203, Cr.P.C. Section 190 provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence. The procedure for dealing with such complaints is provided in sections 200 to 203, Cr.P.C. There may be cases where the evidence to prove the commission of an offence cannot - be collected except through the police agency. Similarly there may be cases where the entire evidence to prove the commission of such offence, is with the complaint. In the second category of cases it cannot be doubted that the complaint before the Magistrate is an adequate remedy. In such case the High Court refuses to exercise in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The advisability of exercising a discretion in favor a petitioner can be considered only in a case where the evidence can be collected through the agency of the police."
16. ' In the case of Wazir Ahmad v. S.H.O., Police Station Mahboob Kalhoro and others 1990 PCr.LJ 2006 a Division Bench of this Court following the view taken in the case of Haji Muhammad Khan (supra), has taken the following view:-- "The relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, being discretionary relief, the writ cannot be issued as of right or in routine. In order to seek a relief of this nature, a petitioner must come to Court with clean hands and if he is found to have suppressed a material fact such relief should be refused."
17. ' In the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Senior Superintendent of Police and another 1989 PCr.LJ 1129 a Division Bench of this Court while examining the scope of sections 154 and 155, Cr.P.C. Has observed as under:-- "So far non-cognizable offence is concerned, section 155, Cr.P.C. Provides that substance of such information shall be entered in a book to be kept aside for such purpose and informant is to be referred to the Magistrate. It is further provided that no Police Officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case. After receiving such order from Magistrate, Police Officer can investigate the case and may exercise the powers in the same way as in a cognizable case. Joint perusal of both the sections mentioned above shows that the requirement of law is that the Police Officer has to record the F.I.R. Mandatorily of a cognizable case under section 154, Cr.P.C. But if it is a non-cognizable case then substance of such information is to be entered in the register maintained under section 155, Cr.P.C. But each case refusal is out of question."
18. ' In the case of Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another PLD 1997 Kar. 600 a Division Bench of this Court has taken the following view:-- "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 complaint is 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. Apart from the foregoing, when information is received by a Police Officer IN charge of a police station regarding the allegations must be found by him to be prima facie correct before an F.I.R. Is registered. But where allegations are made, which, without making an elaborate 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 favor of a party, in a even case, and discretion 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 remedy is concerned, suffice it to say that, a private complaint can provide an equally adequate relief to the complaint, 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 in the present case need not be given by us to the respondents."
19. From the case-law as discussed above it is quite clear that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is not obliged to issue direction for registration of F.I.R. In each case, but it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether such direction shall be issued to meet the ends of justice or availability of an alternate remedy by way of filing a direct complaint will be considered as adequate and proper remedy for declining such relief.
20. ' It is pertinent to note that in the reported case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Muhammad Ilyas (supra), the question of availability of alternate remedy by way of filing of a direct complaint so also the discretionary nature of relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not at all touched by the Court.
21. ' Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, he has suppressed the fact of registration of F.I.R. In Crime No,58 of 1998 against his father and brother, which though discloses a different story but relates to an incident of the same place and same day viz. 1-8-1998. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is now seeking relief of direction for registration of F.I.R. Against the same police official viz. S.H.O. Police Station, Mouladad (including certain other staff of same police station and some private persons), who has not only registered F.I.R. In the above crime but who is also dealing with certain other criminal cases pending for investigation against the petitioner and his other family members at his police station.
22. Respondent No,1 along with his statement, has also placed on record several other documents, which indicate that the petitioner and his other family members are involved in many criminal cases. These facts have not been denied by the petitioner by filing any reply/ counter-affidavit. In addition to this, nature of the offences disclosed by the petitioner in his proposed F.I.R. Goes to show that, to prove the guilt of the accused persons allegedly involved in this crime, the petitioner himself will have to secure and produce such evidence and there will be no such evidence of the alleged offence, which could only be collected through police agency, thus, providing direct complaint as a more proper, appropriate and adequate remedy for him to follow.
23. ' In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I find no merits in this petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limited.