' Through this Constitutional Petition, petitioner seeks a direction for registration of F.I.R. Against D.S.P. Ali Nawaz Abro, A.S-I. Khan Muhammad Chachar and H.C. Abu Bakar in addition to 40/50 unknown police-men who allegedly trespassed her house on or about 21-10-1998 and deprived her of valueable amount of cash, silver and gold ornaments in addition to goats and clothes. In the body of the memo. Of petition it is argued that there is no other adequate, prompt and alternate remedy available to the petitioner, hence extraordinary special jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked.
2. Upon notice being given to Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State, S.H.O. Police Station Khanpur placed on record his statement denying various allegations made in the petition as false and fabricated and set up with an ulterior motive as a counterblast to F.I.R. No,50 of 1998 under sections 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13(d), Arms Ordinance registered at Police Station Khanpur Mahar. It is added that the said F.I.R. Was recorded on 21-10-1998 by S.I.P. Abdul Ghafoor who while on patrol duty alongwith the police force saw three persons duly armed with Kalashnikovs. He chased them and on approach to the village of the petitioner, criminals started firing upon the police party which was returned resulting in arrest of one Irshad son of Muhammad Malik Gedani followed by recovery of a motorcycle and a T.T. Pistol whereupon a case under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance was registered against him. According to police report accused Manik, Liaquat Ali, Basshir sons of Rahim Bux Pitafi, Mohram Ali son of Dhani Bux Pitafi and Shah Nawaz alias Shanoo are involved in the said crime of whom Manik, Liaquat, Bashir and Mohram Ali are the nephews of the petitioner who has resorted to this Court through this petitioner in order to compel police agencies to tamper with the evidence. This statement coupled with copies of F.I.R.
And challan submitted before S.T.A. Court was filed in Court on 31-12-1998. On the subsequent hearing 29-1-1999 copies were supplied to Mr. Abdul Sattar who requested for time to go through the same. On the next hearing i,e, 19-12-1999 Mr. Soomro requested for time to file a rejoinder affidavit but none has been filed till this day.
3. At the hearing it was pointed out to the learned counsel that in the face of complicated questions of fact being involved in the case set up by the petitioner and seriously controverted on behalf of the respondents, adequate and alternate remedy was available to the petitioner to approach the relevant Court of law with a private complaint but he insisted that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to press for a direction for registration of F.I.R. Through the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Article 199 of the Constitution allows an aggrieved party to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court where it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law for the redress of the grievance. In the present case the explanation offered by the respondents cannot be totally brushed aside and the case set up by the petitioner accepted in preference to it as it is not the function of this Court to dilate upon disputed and controversial questions of fact with regard to an incident. Besides the Court of Sessions has the ample authority to inquire into the allegations of the petitioner and counter-version of the police in a properly constituted private complaint. The court of Sessions during the course of preliminary inquiry upon being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to proceed with the complaint can lawfully compel the attendance of the accused to answer the charge. This being the position in law petitioner can hardly be permitted to say that there is no adequate and alternate remedy available to her under the law. On this score alone petition is liable to be dismissed and this view has been expressed by Sindh High Court in a number of cases which view has not been upset by the apex Court. A reference may be made to Jamshed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram 1975 SCMR 149 and Altaf Hussain v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Kar.
600.
5. Mr. Abdul Sattar Soomro referred to a D.B. Case of this Court, namely, Muhammad Ilyas v. Senior Superintendent of Police 1989 PCr.0 1129 and Jamshed Khan v. Government of Sindh 1999 PCr.LJ 512 in support of the contention that it is the duty of a police officer to record the F.I.R. If commission of a cognizable offence is reported at the police station. There is hardly any cavil with this proposition of law and in fact there can be no difference of opinion as to the duty of a police officer but in case a false, vexatious and fabricated story is set up or no cognizable offence is committed, there is no principle of law that the police officer must register such F.I.R. As the circumstances of each case would vary. Needless to observe the question of availability of adequate and alternate remedy in law was neither urged nor discussed in reported cases. Needless to say that the proposition laid in Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee 1995 SCM R 362 that earlier judgment of the Full Bench in the High Court on the same point is binding on the Second Bench is not relevant in the peculiar facts of the case because I am not expressing myself contrary to the view taken in the earlier cases.
6. For the above facts and reasons petition is dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to seek the remedy before the proper forum if so advised.