Sardar Muhammad V. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Quetta and 5 others,

P L D 2023 Balochistan 27 Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ SARDAR MUHAMMAD ---Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Quetta and 5 others ---Respondents Constitution Petition No. 1151 of 2022, decided on 30th August, 2022. (a) Balochistan Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2014 --- ----S. 4 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Prohibition of private money lending --- Protection from harassment ---Scope ---Petitioner sought direction to restrain the police authorities from harassing, blackmailing, arresting him and continuously visiting his house --- Contention of petitioner was that his brother, who had been disavowed by his father, had allegedly borrowed certain amount from private respondent; that the private respondent got the petitioner arrested and illegally confined; that the police was conducting continuous raids at his house and that too without any search warrant and accompanying any lady constable --- Held; present case was of private money lending, which was an offence under S. 4 of the Balochistan Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2014 ---Police instead of initiating proceedings under the private respondent had started pressurizing the petitioner to pay the alleged outstanding amount ---Calling petitioner repeatedly to police station or compelling him for return of alleged amount was palpably without jurisdiction ---Such dispute could only be resolved by the competent court of law that too after recording of evidence --- Constitutional petition was allowed and the official respondents were restrained from any kind of interference between the parties in respect of the dispute in question. (b) Constitution of Pakistan --- ----Art. 175 ---Establishment and jurisdiction of Courts ---Trichotomy of powers ---Scope --- Our system is based on trichotomy of power and each organ of the State is required to function within the bounds specified in the Constitution ---Constitution recognizes only such specific Tribunals to share judicial power with the Court referred to in Arts. 175 & 203, which have been specifically provided by the Constitution itself like Tribunals established under Arts. 212 & 213 etc. (c) Constitution of Pakistan --- ----Art. 203 ---High Court to superintend subordinate Courts ---Scope ---High Court under Art. 203 of the Constitution being the custodian of all the system of justice within its territorial jurisdiction and for establishing the supremacy of law is required to exercise such powers not only over Courts and Tribunals but over all other bodies, like Governments and Governments' functionaries within the area of gratifying principles in order to keep the mainstream of justice from extraneous pollutions and from abuse of the judicial process. Muammar Qazafi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General (AAG) assisted by Umer Farooq, SSP (AIG Complaint) CPO Quetta for Official Respondents. Respondent No.6 in person. Date of hearing: 10th August, 2022. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---The instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution") has been filed with the prayer to restrain the police authorities from harassing, blackmailing, arresting the petitioner and continuously visiting his house.

2. It is case of the petitioner that he is laborer by profession and resident of Pashtoon Abad, Quetta. According to the petitioner, his brother, namely Muhammad Khan has been disinherited by his father viz. Abdul Ghaffar and in this regard a publication was also made in daily newspaper 'Jang' Quetta on 11th May, 2021, clarifying that the petitioner and his family members shall have no concern with any deed of said Muhammad Khan in future. However, the respondent No.6 viz. Gul Zaman alleged that the said Muhammad Khan (petitioner's brother) had some business transaction with him and had borrowed an amount of Rupees One Crore from him, which was to be paid on interest basis. In this respect respondent No.6, from the month of August, 2021 is illegally demanding for payment of the alleged amount from the petitioner. The petitioner denied payment with the contention that neither he was in the knowledge of the alleged business nor had any concern with the alleged borrowed amount, but respondent No.6, being an influential person, is harassing and blackmailing him and his other family members by extending threats for dire consequences. As per the petitioner, the respondent No.6, illegally and unlawfully got him arrested and kept in illegal confinement by SHOs Police Stations Industrial Area and Pashtoon Abad, Quetta, who at the behest of respondent No.6, tortured the petitioner, besides conducting continuous raids at his house, and that too without any search warrant and accompanying any lady constable. It has further been averred that the respondent No.5, at the behest of respondent No.6, is bent upon to involve the petitioner in false criminal cases by blackmailing, harassing and conducting continuous raids at his house, as such, the fundamental rights of the petitioner and his family members guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 9, 14 and 15 are blatantly violated. In this respect the petitioner also approached the respondent No.2 (Inspector General of Police, Balochistan), but no heed was paid to his request, hence the instant constitutional petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Muammar Qazafi Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, learned Additional Advocate General, dully assisted by Mr. Umer Farooq S.S.P (AIG Complaint Cell) CPO Office and SI Asif Nawaz, SHO, Pashtoon Abad, Quetta and also perused the available record, which reflects that in pursuance of decision taken in the meeting of the Police Reforms Committee (PRC), held under the Chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, Police Complaint Redressal Center was established in CPO Office Quetta. The wisdom behind the establishment of the Complaint Redressal Mechanism was to facilitate the public at large to get their issues resolved, provide speedy and expeditious remedy without putting additional financial burden over public and to decrease the burden of the Courts arising out of non -registration of FIRs.

4. The perusal of record reflects that instead of decreasing the number of cases, the Courts are flooded with the petitions like one in hand and petitions under sections 22 -A and 22-B Cr.P.C. due to poor performance of cell in question. The facts of the case in hand would suggest that it is a case of private money landing, which is an offence under section 4 of the Balochistan Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act, 2014, which speaks that "No person individually or collectively, shall engage himself in private money lending in the Province of Balochistan". Similarly, under section 5 of the said Act, abetment of such offences is also an offence. We are afraid that the in -charge of the cell instead of initiating proceedings against respondent No.6, being involved in the business of private money lending, has started pressuring the petitioner to pay the alleged outstanding amount.

5. Our system is based on trichotomy of power and each organ of the State is required to function within the bounds specified in the Constitution. Constitution recognizes only such specific Tribunals to share judicial power with the Court referred to in Articles 175 and 203, which have been specifically provided by the Constitution itself like Tribunals established under Articles 212 and 213 etc. The Police Complaint Redressal Cell being not founded on any of the Articles of the Constitution cannot lawfully share judicial power with the Courts referred to in Articles 175 and 203 of the Constitution.

6. Admittedly, this Court under Article 203 of the Constitution being the custodian of all the system of justice within its territorial jurisdiction and for establishing the supremacy of law is required to exercise such powers not only over Courts and Tribunals but over all other bodies, like Governments and Governments' functionaries within the area of gratifying principles in order to keep the mainstream of justice from extraneous pollutions and from abuse of the judicial process.

7. Even otherwise, the memo of petition as well as documents produced by the respondents reflect that there is money dispute between the private parties which could not be looked into or considered by the police authorities under the provisions of police complaint cell. Calling petitioner repeatedly to police station or compelling him for return of alleged amount is palpably without jurisdiction. Determination of such dispute can only be resolved by the competent court of law that too after recording of evidence.

8. While seeing from the above context, we are of the considered view that it is a classic case of total absence of jurisdiction, the manifest excess of jurisdiction and imminent abuse of jurisdiction warranting exercise of extra constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 199 and 203 of the Constitution. Thus, the petition is allowed and the official respondents are restrained from any kind of interference between the parties in respect of dispute in question. Needless to observe that the private respondent can approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance. SA/151/Bal. Petition allowe