ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-297 of 2018.

 Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 

   Before:  Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

 

·        For hearing of case.

04.01.2019.

                        Mr. Mumtaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for private respondents.

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G

           

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

 

 1.                   The applicant by way of instant criminal Misc.Applicatoin        u/s 561-A Cr.PC has impugned order dated 26.10.2018, whereby his application u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC has been dismissed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, with the following observation;

“From the careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there is matrimonial dispute between the applicant and proposed accused. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant with malafide intention intends to lodge the false FIR against the proposed accused persons in order to put pressure upon them. It is pertinent to mention here that it is general practice of the peoples to settle the matters on their wishes and use to file such application before Ex-office Justice of Peace against their opposite party to pressurize and disgrace them in society”.

 

2.              The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin as per applicant are that the private respondents, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, being armed with deadly weapons, put an attempt to abduct his daughter Mst.Safia and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that his FIR was not recorded by the police and he then by way of instant application u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against the police to record his FIR for the above said incident but it too was dismissed accordingly, as stated above.

3.              It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Ex-office Justice of Peace has refused recording FIR of the applicant without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for direction against police to record FIR of the incident at the instance of applicant, for the above said incident, which according to him is cognizable in its nature.

4.              Learned counsel for the private respondents and learned D.P.G for the State have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin by contending that the applicant in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with the private respondents is intending to involve them in false case with malafide intention by making such applications one after other, without an end.

5.              I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6.              Admittedly, the parties being related inter-se are disputed over the matrimonial affairs. None has been abducted. No incident as alleged by the applicant as per police report has taken place, such report of the police apparently is not rebutted by the applicant by filing his objections. In that context, the contention of learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents that the applicant in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with the private respondents is intending  to involve them in a false case with malafide intention could not be lost sight of.

7.              In case of Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC-691), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“ Validity---Dispute between parties was over such house---Applicant had secured restrain, order against respondent from Civil Court, and for its violation, he had a remedy before Civil Court---Applicant had an alternate remedy to file private complaints against respondent---Applicant had filed another application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge to restrain public functionaries from taking action against under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder---Application for registration of FIR had been filed with malafide intention.”

 

8.             In view of facts and reasons discussed above, it can be concluded safely that learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, has committed no wrong by dismissing the application of the applicant u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC, which can be made right by this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin u/s 561-A Cr.PC, it is dismissed accordingly.

 

                                                                                                                          J U D G E

.