' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Shah Rehman petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition No,984 of 2002 under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the prayer that the Station House Officer, Police Station Akora Khattak, District Nowshera, respondent No,2 be directed to register F.I.R. Against Abdul Bari, Farman and Ayub alleged to have deprived the petitioner of his motor car No,1527-B Swabi on gun point. The grievance of the petitioner is that he approached respondent No,2 for recording an against the above named person but he declined to do so. The petitioner submitted an application to Superintendent of Police, respondent No,3, Nowshera who marked it to the I.S.P. Akora Khattak but no action was taken on it, which necessitated the filing of instant writ petition.
2. Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner contended with force that the respondents snatched the motor car of the petitioner on gun point on 6-8-2002 while the petitioner was on his way to Peshawar at Jehangira and that as a cognizable offence has been committed, an F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Is liable to be registered against the accused under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 386 and 392, P.P.C.
3. Ms. Mussarat Hilali, Additional Advocate-General for the State, on the other hand, narrated a different story and stated that in fact on 28-8-2002 the petitioner alongwith Farmanullah had brought the motor car in question to the police station stating that there is a bargain dispute between the petitioner and Farmanullah over the said car and that the same be parked in the police station for safe custody till resolution of the dispute. At the relevant time notables of the area namely Haji Rajwali Khan, Amjad Hussain, Akhtar Gul, Abdul Bari and others were also accompanying the petitioner and Farmanullah. A report was duly entered in the daily diary vide No,29 dated 28-8-2002. It is added that no report was made by the petitioner except the complaint mentioned above. Lastly it is contended that an application was moved before the Court of Illaqa Magistrate for 'Superdari' of the vehicle wherein the factum of snatching away the car from the petitioner on gun point by the respondents has not been mentioned. Such is clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner has concealed true facts and he has not come to the Court with clean hands.
4. We .Have perused parawise comments of respondents Nos./ and 3 which have been filed in Court by Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, S.H.O., Police Station Akora Khattak.
5. It needs no reiteration that a Police Officer Incharge of the police station is under a statutory duty in terms of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reduce into writing every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. If the information relates to a non-cognizable offence the same is to be entered in the relevant register as envisaged by section 155 of the Code.
For the performance of this statutory duty, no orders are required from the Senior Police 'Officers.
Again the S.H.O. Is under legal obligation to register F.I.R. Unless he was of the firm opinion that the application on the very face of it contained incredible or false information. Karim Bibi petitioner v.
S.H.O., Police Station, Rajana, Faisalabad and others,(1985 PCr.LJ 213 Lah.), Khan Muhammad v.
S.H.O., Police Station Mangtanwala, District Sheikhupura and others (1983 PCr.LJ 181 Lah.).
6. In the instant case, the story narrated by Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, S.H.O., Police Station Akora Khattak is altogether different from the facts disclosed in the petition. When attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to the statement of the S.H.O., the learned counsel had no plausible reply to make. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we find ourselves in agreement with learned Additional Advocate-General that there was a bargain dispute between the petitioner and one of the accused namely Farmanullah and the vehicle in question was brought to the police station for safe custody in order to avert any untoward incident.
7. Jurisdiction of High Court which petitioner seeks to invoke is discretionary and equitable in nature and one of the recognized principles on the basis of which interference can be refused is the conduct of the petitioner which must be such as to entitle him to the grant of relief. It is also settled principle of law that Court jurisdiction can be exercised in favor of persons who come to Court with clean hands. Article 199 of the Constitution is to protect legal, inalienable and fundamental rights of a person. This Article casts an obligation on the High Court to act in aid of law, protect the rights of the citizens within the frame-work of the Constitution against the infringement of law and Constitution by the Executive Authorities. It is now well-settled that power under the Constitutional jurisdiction can only be exercised and used in aid of justice and not to promote the injustice. The powers are to be used and exercised fairly, justifiably and reasonably.
8. Having held that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and no case for exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, has been made out, we are left with no option but to dismiss the petition in limine and we order accordingly.