ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 30 of 2019

Date Oder with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

Hearing of case

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

29.04.2019

Applicant Misri Khan present in person

Respondent No.3 Ghulam Shabbir present in person

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 07.01.2019 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Naushahro Feroze, whereby he has directed the SHO Police Station Darya Khan Mari to record statement of the private respondent u/s 154 Cr.P.C.

2. As per the private respondent the applicant issued a cheque in his favour on account of purchase of goats, it was bounced when was presented before the concerned Bank for encashment, his FIR for the above said incident was not recorded by the police and he then by way of an application u/s 22-A and B Cr.P.C sought for the same, which 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.

3. It is contended by the applicant in person that the dispute between him and the private respondent is over settlement of accounts on sale and purchase of the goat, it was to have been resolved by civil Court having jurisdiction and learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Naushahro Feroze has passed the impugned order without providing him chance of hearing. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

4. Learned DPG for the State and private respondent in person have sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by supporting the impugned order.

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

6. Admittedly, the parties were having a business transaction over sale and purchase of the goats, the dispute between them, if any was on settlement of accounts, same ought to have been resolved by a civil Court having jurisdiction. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of the private respondent dishonestly and for that his FIR was not being recorded by the police then the private respondent was having a alternate remedy to have exhausted before the Court having jurisdiction in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C, as police in such like cases has hardly to do anything. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained, it is set-aside with direction to the private respondent to have exhaust his remedies civil as well as criminal before the Courts having jurisdiction.

7. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly in above terms.

Judge

ARBROHI