' Through this Constitutional petition, a complaint is made that the respondents police officers posted at Police Stations Garjakh, Satellite Town, Model Town and Police Station Dhullye, Gujranwala have made it a habit to arrest the son of the petitioner under section 54, Cr.P.C. Every now and then.
2. ' The four respondents through respondent No,1 S.S.P., Gujranwala in the reply and parawise comments have stated that Muhammad Farooq son of the petitioner is facing trial in case F.I.R.
No,563, dated 29-9-1996 under sections 399/401, P.P.0 and F.I.R. No,564, dated 29-9-1996 under section 13/20/65, A.O. Registered at Police Station Satellate Town, Gujranwala. At the same time, it has not been denied that on at least four different occasions, the son of the petitioner was arrested under section 54, Cr.P.C. With reference to certain pending criminal proceedings and was either found innocent or was discharged by the Maga Magistrate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon 1997 M LD 1419 Re: Mst. Gulzar Begum, Inspector, Police Post Shahidara Town, Lahore and another 1998 PCr.LJ 1035 Re: Mazharuddin v. The State PLJ 1999 Cr.0 (Lahore) 1625 Re: Allah Rakkhi v. The State and 1999 SCM R 944 Re: Muhammad Zakaria v. The State prays for a direction in terms of the 'prayer made in the petition that the respondents should be restrained from harassing the petitioner or his family members or to raid his house "to arrest the son of the petitioner as a suspect".
4. In the aforesaid judgments relied upon for the petitioner, the parameters of section 54, Cr.P.C.
Were determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as Lahore and Karachi High Courts. It is correct that the powers conferred upon the police officer under section 54, Cr.P.C. Are not unbridled and like any other power vested in a public functionary are to be exercised only within and in order to keep the system functioning. The Constitutional guarantees are invariably to remain the supreme consideration. At the same time, I am of the view that a general direction in terms of the prayer cannot possibly be made. Such a direction is not only likely to be misused but will also operate against the system, the enforcement of which is being sought through this Constitutional petition.
5. In order to safeguard the Constitutional rights of the petitioner, I will direct the respondent No,1- S.S.P.. Gujaranwala to personally look into the matter and make appropriate direction to the police officers, respondents Nos.2 to 5 to remain strictly within the four corners of law while making resort to provisions of section 54, Cr.P.C. He will ensure a restraint against excess of jurisdiction by the respondent police officers. Also the petitioner may have resort to alternate remedy by proceedings against the respondents Nos.2 to 5 both on civil as well as criminal side of administration of justice if any of them travels beyond the parameters determined in the aforesaid judgments.
6. Disposed of.