IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Constitution Petition S-703 of 2014
Constitution Petition S-735 of 2014
Aftab Ahmed Soomro
Vs.
SHO P.S New Foujdari Shikarpur
and Others
Aftab Ahmed Soomro
Vs.
A.S.P City Shikarpur Shikarpur
and Others
For the Petitioner: Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, Advocate.
For the Respondents Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel.
Date of Hearing: 04.09.2018
Date of Announcement: 04.09.2018
O R D E R
Agha Faisal, J. Through this order, the Court seeks to determine the two listed petitions, as the subject matter is common inter se.
2. Briefly stated C.P No. S-703 of 2014 (“First Petition”) was filed seeking the following relief:
“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stop causing harassment to the petitioner and his family at the behest of private respondents and do not dispossess the petitioner from his lawful property without due course of law.
b) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to record the statement of the petitioner and if a cognizable offence is made, same may be recorded into 154, Cr.P.C book and register the FIR of the petitioner.
c) To direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure protection of life, liberty and property of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents, further direction be issued to the private respondents not to cause any sort of harassment and furnish bond that they will neither cause any harassment or evict the petitioner from above mentioned property without due course of law …..”
3. The matter, subject of the dispute, was then the basis of C.P S-735 of 2014 (“Second Petition”) wherein the following relief was claimed:
a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call upon respondents No.1, 4 to 8 and 9 to 11, restraining them from causing harassment to the petitioner from withdrawing the earlier petition No. S- 703/2014, with further direction to them, not to disturb peaceful life of the petitioner.
b) To call upon respondent No.1 directing him not to involve himself in civil/property matters of the private parties which is of purely civil nature and conduct himself strictly in accordance with law.
c) To direct the respondent No.1 and 4 & private respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his house i.e. CS No.40/1 Ward-50 with the active assistance of local police as well as private persons as the matter pertains to civil nature and action if any shall be in accordance with law.
d) That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondent No.3 to provide adequate protection to the life, liberty, honour and property of the petitioner and his other family members as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to take lawful action against the respondents No.1, 5 to 11, for their illegal acts as disclosed above ……..
4. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved due to the actions of the respondents as they have not only caused him harassment but have also resulted in the illegal dispossession of the petitioner from his property. It was further submitted that to compound the detriment to the petitioner an F.I.R was also registered against the petitioner in order to subject him to coercion and harassment.
5. Mr. Ali Raza Pathan, State counsel, controverted the arguments as aforesaid and submitted that insofar as the official respondents are concerned they have acted duly in accordance with law. Per learned State counsel the statements of the respondents are available on file and they clearly demonstrate the lawful conduct of the official respondents. The learned State counsel drew attention to the following passage from a statement under consideration:
“6. That the petitioner neither appeared before the undersigned nor approached for registration of FIR against Mohammad Hashif s/o Mohammad Ishaq Soomro respondent No.3 and others.
7. That, as per record, complainant Muhammad Hashim s/o Muhammad Ishaq (respondent No.7) got registered case FIR No. 136/2014 U/S 452, 3448, 454, 506/2, 148, 149, PPC at PS New Foujdari against accused Aftab Ahmed s/o Ali Bux 2/-Ashfaq Ahmed 3/- Sheraz Ahmed 4/-Shahzoor 5/- Amer Bux @ Bilawal four s/o Aftab Ahmed 6/- Riaz Ahmed s/o Aftab @ Sarwar 7/- Rehan s/o Aftab @ Sarwar all by caste Soomra and five unknown on 23-07-2014.
8. That investigation of above case was conducted by IO/SIP Syed Hajan Shah, who recorded statements U/S 161 CRPC of PWs, they supported the version of FIR. I.O arrested wanted accused Aftab Ahmed s/o Ali Bux 2/-Ashfaq Ahmed 3/- Sheraz Ahmed 4/-Shahzoor 5/- Amer Bux @ Bilawal four s/o Aftab Ahmed 6/-Riaz Ahmed s/o Aftab @ Sarwar and produced them in the court of law for getting remand. The H’ble Judge granted their bail. Then they were released on court bail. I.O after completion investigation, submitted challan against (on court bail) accused Aftab Ahmed s/o Ali Bux 2/-Ashfaq Ahmed 3/- Sheraz Ahmed 4/- Shahzoor 5/- Ameer Bux @ Bilawal four s/o Aftab Ahmed 6/- Riaz Ahmed s/o Aftab @ Sarwar along with absconder accused Rehan s/o Aftab @ Sarwar Soomro and five unknown in the court of law vide challan No. 98 dted 08-08-2014.”
6. The aforesaid statement was corroborated by the statement filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shikarpur, as the same affirmed the content of the statement referred to supra. The statements filed by the official respondents in the Second Petition mirror the submissions made in the First Petition hence reproduction of the same is eschewed herein for the sake of brevity.
7. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel and is also aware of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court at Sukkur wherein the scope of harassment petitions has been circumscribed. The Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Younus Abbas & others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal & Other (reported as PLD 2016 SC 581) is also within the contemplation of this Court, wherein the legal recourse has been prescribed in the event that a citizen is unable to lodge an F.I.R.
8. The petitioner’s allegations regarding possession of or dispossession from a property is better determined by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction, in the presence of a statutory remedy available in such regard, and hence this Court is not the proper forum for agitation of the said issue. Insofar as the issue of registration of F.I.R is concerned, it is born out from the record that no attempt to lodge an F.I.R was made by the petitioner and there is no document on record to corroborate petitioner’s assertion that an attempt was in fact made and the lodging of the F.I.R was denied. Even otherwise in view of the prescription contained in the case of Younus Abbas & others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal & Other (reported as PLD 2016 SC 581) adequate remedy was available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance in respect thereof.
9. Insofar as the issue of harassment and protection to the petitioner is concerned, the learned State counsel has read out the relevant content from the statement filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that no harassment has been caused to the petitioner and nor shall any harassment be caused in future. Attention is also drawn to the relevant segment of the said statements wherein it is recorded that the official respondents shall extend every protection to the petitioner, as is the right of every citizen of this country, in due accordance with law.
10. In view of the foregoing it is considered view of this Court that the present petitions are devoid of merit hence the same are dismissed with no order as to cost. However, before parting with the judgment it is pertinent to record that the petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan who enjoys the protection and freedom guaranteed under the Constitution and the official respondents shall ensure that no harassment is caused thereto and that the petitioner is accorded due protection of the law.
Judge
Abid H. Qazi/**