ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr. Rev: Appln: No.S-34 of 2015.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For orders on MA-7811/15.

For katcha peshi.

05.12.2016.

Mr. Illahi Bux Jamali, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, A.P.G for the State.

Syed Tarique Ahmed Shah, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4.

===

Through instant revision application, applicant/complainant has challenged the order dated 13.01.2015 whereby his Direct Complaint was dismissed. Relevant last paragraph of the order is reproduced:-

“ In view of above, under the facts and circumstances, it appears that there is nothing against the above named respondents to show that they have committed any criminal act, fraud, forgery and cheating, hence this direct complaint merits no consideration and same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance as the matter seems to be of civil nature.”

The case of the applicant is that respondent No.1 is wife of applicant whereas respondents No.2 to 4 are kids of respondent No.1 from her earlier husband; respondent No.1 has prepared fake CNIC, while showing herself wife of earlier husband; she is getting pension as his wife as well as she is keeping two CNICs. Further, it is contended that respondent No.1 purchased agricultural land from applicant, who sold out the same without consent of applicant. Applicant preferred application before Anti Corruption Court, wherein inquiry was conducted and thereafter such complaint was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C, he has appended inquiry report. Being relevant, it will be conducive to refer the comments of inquiry report:-

“1. During the course of enquiry, it was found that, one NIC vide No.41201-9282296-8 disclose that Mst. Naseem Begum W/O Sher Muhammad Jamali (complainant) and another vide No.41201-4905861-1 shows Mst.Naseem Begum W/o Muhammad Umar Joyo (late).

2. During the course of enquiry, NIC of Mst. Naseem Begum was verified from NADRA through a letter, but Assistant Director NADRA Sukkur informed that for the purpose National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) Ministry of Interior Islamabad may be approached, such letter vide his No.Veri/I/14/NADRA/VR/677 dated 27.05.2014.

3. That Sir, it was found that, Agriculture Pass book No.A-427743 regarding relevant land is already in the name of Naseem Begum W/o Sher Muhammad Jamali and the same was identified by Pir Aijaz Ahmed Tapedar Tapo A-Jalbani, Taluka Dadu and same was attested by Mukhtiarkar, Dadu.

4. During the course of enquiry, Shafiq Ahmed Panhwar present Tapedar of Tapo A-Jalbani disclosed in his statement that, as per entry No.154 dated 09.01.2003 land property was purchased by Mst. Naseem Begum w/o Sher Muhammad Jamali through register sale deed No.522 dated 24.05.2003 and the same land was sold out to Ghulam Nabi Panhwar through registered sale deed No.192 dated 24.02.2007.

5. That Sir, it has came on record that, one Muhammad Umar Joyo, Road Mistry in District Council Dadu, after his retirement expired and his family pension was granted to his widow Mst. Naseem Begum as per rules, which is still being drawn by the said Mst. Naseem Begum from her Account No.15359-2 from National Bank Dadu Branch Rs.3845/-per month.

6. That Sir, Recent Chief Officer District Council Dadu issued letter to Manager NBP Dadu to seize Account No.15359-2 of Mst. Naseem Begum w/o late Muhammad Umar vide his letter No.84 dated 08.04.2014.

7. That Sir, no any evidence has been found in favour of Sher Muhammad Jamali`s ownership of property, which was sold out by Mst. Naseem Begum Joyo, Sher Muhammad Jamali has also been failed to produce his Nikahnama in support of his claim that Mst. Naseem Bgum Joyo got married with him.

8. That sir, Mst.Naseem Begum Joyo, disclosed in her further statement that Sher Muhammad Jamali resides in her neighborhood, her NIC was lost, then Sher Muhammad Jamali promised her to get her prepared new NIC, but Sher Muhammad Jamali fraudulently got prepared her NIC showing himself her husband. Thereafter, Sher Muhammad Jamali tried to usurp her property, which was inherited by her from her late husband Muhammad Umar Joyo.”

The present applicant has leveled certain allegation against respondent no.1 while basing on said inquiry report but the said report prima facie speaks that applicant himself failed to substantiate his allegations including ownership of property purchased by respondent no.1 through registered sale deed. Keeping two CNICs i.e by giving different particular may be an offence but since the respondent no.1 has denied her relation of ‘wife’ with applicant while alleging that it was applicant Sher Muhammad Jamali himself who fraudulently got prepared her NIC showing himself her husband and then tried to usurp her property hence prima facie applicant is not legally justified to insist trial of respondent no.1. Needless to add that, no cognizance could be legally taken by a court of law except when sufficient evidence is available. A claim of relation of husband and wife could be determined by Family Court and not by a criminal court. It is not requirement of law that an owner shall not sell the property without permission or consent of ex-owner. To bring the law into motion (recording of FIR) does not require a particular person or status who even needs not necessarily be a ‘witness’ of offence but when it comes to filing of a direct complaint the complainant would require to prove his status as ‘witness’ or least aggrieved of the complained offence. Neither the inquiry , conducted by Anti Corruption authority, helps the allegations of the applicant nor he otherwise appears to be aggrieved with withdrawal of pension of deceased husband of respondent no.1 yet he has been continuing to drag the respondent no.1 into criminal litigation as an ‘accused’ which has never been the object of ‘Criminal Administration of Justice’. Filing of the instant revision appears to be causeless and devoid of substance, therefore, impugned order, being proper and legal, requires no interference. Accordingly, instant criminal revision application is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) for filing a causeless petition. Cost shall be deposited in favour of High Court clinic.

JUDGE