ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of CMA No. 7331/2014

3. For hearing of Main Case.

26.11.2015

Mr. Z. U. Mujahid, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, advocate for the respondent No. 1

Mr. Fareed Azam, State Counsel.

This C. P. has been filed by the Petitioner against some relief that includes allegations of harassment against the Respondents and registration of an FIR against Respondents No.1 and 3 against an incident which took place on 01.12.2014. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 stated that in the past no any particular harassment was caused to the Petitioner nor the Respondent No.1 intends to cause any harassment to the Petitioner, in future. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that he is satisfied with the statement of the Respondent, however, in terms of prayer Clause “E” directions were issued by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 for recording of his statement, which though was recorded by Respondent No.6, but that statement has not been acted upon by the Police officials. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has raised a question over maintainability of this petition to the extent of prayer Clause “e” by stating that under the law the remedy in the shape of Provisions of Section 24 A & B Cr.P.C are available and if the Petitioner. A copy of the FIR against the Respondent No.1 he should have filed such application before Justice of Peace.

It appears that this petition was filed not only for registration of an FIR against the Petitioner, but also against the alleged harassment by the Respondent since the statement from the learned counsel for the Respondent is given that no harassment would be caused to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be satisfied and prays that in the light of the above such statement, petition may be disposed of. Order dated 15.12.2014 clearly indicates that Respondent No.6 was directed by this Court to record the statement of the Petitioner in the wake of allegations by the petitioner that the petitioner was being harassed by the Respondents the purpose of giving directions to the Respondent No.6 to record the statement of petitioner and then act upon it in accordance with law has become infructuous. In the circumstances, while disposing of this petition, direct the Respondent No.6 to act upon the statement of the petitioner in accordance with and submit such report through MIT of this Court.

J U D G E

ZahidBaig