' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that Muhammad Yaqoob lodged an F.I.R. No, 546 of 1999 dated 13-7-1998 under section 17-22 of E.O. Police Station FIA, Lahore alleging therein that respondent No, 4 and petitioner had received money for sending him abroad. During the course of investigation, the petitioner paid Rs,90,000 to Muhammad Yaqoob on the pressure of the FIA Authority whereas the petitioner was quite innocent and was nothing to do with the transaction between Muhammad Yaqoob and respondent No,
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that matter is pending adjudication before the Anti-Corruption Court against the petitioner and respondent No,
4. The respondent No, 1 is harassing the petitioner under the ,direction of respondent No,2. He further submits that respondent No, 3 has no lawful authority to take the cognizance of the matter against the petitioner and issue direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He further submits that petitioner is innocent and repaid huge amount under the pressure of the F.I.A. Authorities.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney General submits under instructions that, allegations against the respondent No, 3 is false one. The respondent No, 3 only received the complaint from the citizen and forwarded the same to the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizens. He further submits that petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed even if the allegation of petitioner against the respondent No, 3 is presumed to be correct. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that Muhammad Yaqoob is co-accused of the petitioner who had submitted application before the respondent No, 3, therefore, action of the respondent is without lawful authority.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
4. In case the contents of writ petition is read as a whole, it brings the case in the area of disputed question of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction. As the petitioner failed to bring on record any document to show that petitioner and respondent No, 4 are not privy to the fraud committed with Muhammad Yaqoob. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary in character. Since the respondent No, 4 and petitioner defrauded the innocent people like Muhammad Yaqoob, keeping this fact in-view, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner on the well- known principle that he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawabzada Syed Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1983 SC 236) and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case (1998 SC.M.R 1462) and G.M. Malik Is case (1993 CLC 178).
' In view .Of what has been discussed above, the writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.