ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 208 of 2019

Date Oder with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

Priority case

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of MA No.1510/2019 (S/A)

01.04.2019

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- The applicant by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C has impugned order dated 04.3.2019 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Naushahro Feroze.

3. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application as per the private respondent are that the applicant and others by committing trespass in her house after keeping her and her witnesses under fear of death, take away her belongings as are detailed in her application, for that according to her she approached SHO Police Station Darya Khan Mari for recording of her FIR, it was not recorded and then she sought for direction against SHO Police Station Darya Khan Mari for recording of her FIR by way of making an application u/s 22-A and B Cr.P.C, it was issued accordingly by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Naushahro Feroze by way of order which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, as stated above.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent has managed a false story in order to save her relatives from legal consequences and learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Naushahro Feroze has passed the impugned order without proper application of judicial mind. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

5. Learned DPG for the State sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by supporting the impugned order.

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

7. The allegation which is levelled by the private respondent against the applicant and others is that of trespass and robbery which constitutes a cognizable offence. In all six persons were affected by way of the impugned order but it is challenged by the applicant alone which prima facie indicates that it is accepted by rest of the affected persons. No cogent ground is advanced which may justify setting aside of the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, it is dismissed accordingly with direction to the applicant to prove his innocence before the police by joining the investigation, on event of registration of FIR against him.

Judge

ARBROHI