' Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan a direction is being sought to respondent No,3, S.H.O., Police Station Green Town, for the registration of criminal case under the relevant provision of law against the respondents Nos.4 to 8 without any further delay.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,4 Malik Habib Elahi rented out two shops to the petitioner about 20 years ago who was paying the rent regularly and the petitioner and his real brother Malik Pervaiz Akhtar were running the business of general store etc. In these shops. The provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance were applicable between the petitioner and respondent No,4 and instead of filing of an ejectment petition, respondent No,4 resorted to get the vacant possession of the shops by pressurizing the petitioner through illegal means by misusing the offices of respondents Nos.5 to 8 as, according to him, his nephew namely Sibtain Ali was serving the Pakistan Army as Captain. Respondent No,4 moved an application to the Incharge Monitoring Cell, D.C. Office, Lahore and petitioner was summoned by respondent No,6 Major Tahir, Incharge Monitoring Cell, Model Town, Lahore who directed the petitioner to vacate the shops and the petitioner was also threatened with dire consequences. Petitioner tiled a suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore which was assigned to learned Civil Judge and notice was issued to the defendant/respondent No,4 and status quo order was passed on 9-2-2000. Notice was duly served on respondent No,4 and when he came to know about the filing of the suit by the petitioner, he again tried to misuse the powers of respondents Nos.5 to 8. On 10-2-2000 at about 12-00 noon. Petitioner and his brother were summoned at the Police Station Green Town, Lahore through Constable Zameer Shah. When the petitioner alongwith other members of the locality entered into the police station, respondent No,6 Major Tahir started abusing the petitioner and gave him beatings with stick and also with fist blows. He also used derogatory remarks about the learned Civil Judge, who issued the stay order. Petitioner was immediately taken into custody and was confined in the lock-up in the police station and similar treatment was also given to the brother of the petitioner and respondents Nos.4 to 8 went to the shops in question and took the possession while locks were broken; and thus, committed criminal trespass with the help of few unknown persons and threw out the articles lying in the shops and also committed the dacoity by taking away goods of the value of Rs,50,000 and hard cash of Rs,3,000 whereas petitioner and his brother were involved in a false criminal case on the complaint of respondent No,5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the documentary evidence is available on the record to show that the application was moved by respondent No,4; Civil suit was filed by the petitioner for the permanent injunction in which status quo was granted and Rapat was entered on 10-2-2000 about departure of the respondents Nos.5 to 8 from the police station alongwith respondent No,4 in connection with his application and the Rapat No,25 of that date shows that the possession had been delivered to Habib Elahi by these persons and the application was moved by the petitioner to the S.H.O. For the registration of the case and also about registration of false case against the petitioner under section 188, P.P.C. On 10-2-2000 on the complaint of Ishrat Ali Khan respondent No,5 hence the police was bound to register the case and to investigate the same in accordance with law.
4. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has denied the allegations on behalf of respondent No,6 and contended that he had not committed any offence. It is further contended that the pendency of the civil suit is admitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is not maintainable and the civil suit has been filed by the petitioner and can raise these objections before the learned Civil Judge. It is further contended that the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner by filing a private complaints and disputed question of fact are involved which cannot be resolved without recording of the evidence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has also opposed this petition on the ground that the civil suit is pending and alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by filing a private complaint and moreover the matter was amicably settled whereafter possession was delivered by the petitioner with consent and free-will and subsequently, the distorted facts have been introduced to pressurize the private respondent by alleging the false allegations.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Rapat No,18, dated 10-2-2000 shows that the respondents Nos.4 to 8 gone to the spot while Rapat No,25 shows the registration of case under section 188, P.P.C. And also it is mentioned that Malik Khalid Mehmood and Malik Habib Elahi have some dispute over shops and it has been resolved. In such circumstances as the disputed questions of fact have arisen in this case which are being denied by respondents Nos.4 to 8, the same cannot be resolved without recording of evidence and same cannot be done in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has alleged the whole evidence in his possession which is the object of the investigation to collect the same as defined under section 4 of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, without commenting upon merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either parties in the appropriate proceedings, I am not inclined to issue any writ for registration of the case as the petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing the private complaint for prosecution of respondents into the allegations levelled in this writ petition which is more efficacious as is defined in Chapter XVI of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
' With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.