ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc. Appln.
No.S- 80 of 2019
Date Oder with Signature of
Hon’ble Judge
For hearing
of main case
29.04.2019
Mr. Achar Khan
Gabole Advocate for the applicant
Mr. Shahid Ali Panhwar Advocate for private
respondents
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 16.01.2019 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Naushahro Feroze,
whereby his application for issuance of
direction against SHO Police Station Mithiani for recording of FIR against
private respondents was dismissed.
2. It
is alleged by the applicant that the private respondent by violating the terms
and conditions of lease agreement in connection with installment of Mobilink
Tower created the problem for the applicant and his Company by committing theft and shutting down the
Tower, for that he approached SHO P.S Mithiani to record his FIR, it was not
recorded, he then by way of filing an application u/s 22-A and B Cr.P.C sought
for direction against SHO P.S Mithiani to record his FIR, it was dismissed by
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace,
Naushahro Feroce, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court.
3. It
is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation made
by the applicant obviously constitutes the cognizable offence. In that
situation, according to him learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace ought not to
have refused issuance of direction against SHO P.S Mithiani to record FIR of
the applicant. By contending so, he sought for direction against SHO P.S
Mithiani to record FIR of the applicant.
4. Learned
DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought
for dismissal of the instant application by supporting the impugned order by
contending that the applicant in order to deprive the private respondent of his
salary is intending to involve him in the false case malafidely.
5. I
have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. As
per police report which was furnished before learned Ex-Officio Justice of
Peace there is dispute between the parties over matter of Mobilink Tower and
its Caretaker. Such report is not rebutted by the applicant by way of filing
his objections. In that situation, the logical conclusion which could be drawn would
be that it is accepted by the applicant and the applicant in order to satisfy
his civil dispute with the private respondent is intending to involve him in
this case falsely and malafidely.
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 above, it could be concluded safely
that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while
dismissing the application of the applicant by way of impugned order has
committed no wrong which could be made right by this Court. Consequently, the
instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.
Judge
ARBROHI