1. ' The petitioner in this petition, under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has alleged that respondents Nos.2 and 3, who are all police officials misused their official position by committing lurking house trespass by scaling over the wall on 3-4-1998 at about 2-30 a.m. In the house of the petitioner and they allegedly gave severe beating to the husband of the petitioner due to which his hip bone 'as fractured and he is still confined to bed. They also gave beating to Bilal Khan son of the petitioner and removed him forcibly in police mobile and thereafter, he was taken to Police Station Surjani Town but was released in the morning hours. It is further alleged that this raid was conducted by the police officials at the instance of respondent No,5. The petitioner has prayed that respondent No,6 may be directed to register the case against respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 under Anti-Corruption Laws and to take up investigation in accordance with law.
2. ' In response to the notice issued by this Court, learned A.A.-G. Appeared along with S.H.O., Police, Station Surjani Town Karachi and comments were also filed by him. The Police Officers have denied all the allegations as baseless and false. It was reiterated that local police did not take any action against any person. However, A.S.-I. Ali Akbar of Police Station Surjani Town in his comments stated that Bahadur Ali, brother of the petitioner is required in F.I.R. No,13 of 1998 and on spy information the police party went to the house of the petitioner to apprehend the said culprit but he was not available, therefore, the police party returned and no further action was taken.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.-G. And perused the record. In my humble view the relief granted by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is purely discretionary and in cases where the allegations made against the accused require further investigation before. The same can be believed to be true, the safest course for the Court would be not to issue such directions when an equally efficacious and adequate alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. Without going into the question regarding the correctness of the allegations made in the petition I am of the view that the petitioner can seek her remedy before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter. For this I am fortified by the judgment reported as Jamshed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCM R 249 wherein their Lordships of the Honorable Supreme Court observed as follows:-- "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."
4. ' Reference in this regard may also be made to four unreported Division Bench decisions of this Court in Sachedino v. S.S.P., Sukkur and another C.P. No,D-66 of 1998; Ali Gul Sangi v. I.C. Military Appellate Cell and others C.P. D-94 of 1998, Nazar Muhammad v. S.S.P., Sukkur and others C.P. D-10,_ of 1998 and Wazir Ahmed v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Home, Department, Karachi and others CP D-104 of 1998.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is dismissed in limited.