ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Application No.S- 268 of 2019

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For non prosecution.

13-05-2019

Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabbani, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant application u/s 561-A Cr.PC are that the proposed accused by committing trespass in her house have beaten her son and nephews and then went away by threatening her to be killed in case the land in their possession is not transferred in their name. she allegedly approached the police for recording her FIR, it was not recorded and then she by way of an application u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against SHO PS Salehpat to record her FIR, it was dismissed by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Sukkur by way of order dated 26.3.2019 which is impugned by the applicant before this court by way of instant application u/s 561-A Cr.PC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice Peace Sukkur was not justified in dismissing the application of the applicant as allegation leveled by the applicant constituted cognizable offence. By contending so he sought for direction against SHO PS Salehpat to record statement of the applicant u/s 154 Cr.PC.

3. Learned DPG for the State by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of instant application by contending that no incident as alleged by the applicant has taken place and the applicant in order to satisfy her dispute with the proposed accused is intending to involve them in false criminal case, malafidely.

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

5. Admittedly the parties are disputed over landed property, it is the simple case of maltreatment and no injury as per learned DPG is constituting a cognizable offence. In that situation, learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was right to dismiss the application u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC by way of impugned order which is not calling for any interference by this court.

6. 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.”

7. In view of the above, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Rafi /P.A