ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. A. No.S-242 of 2018.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of main case.

2. For hearing of M.A.No.4322 / 2018 (561-A)

05.10.2018.

Applicant in person

                        Mr.Sarfraz Ali Abbasi, Advocate for private respondent.

                        Mr.Yasir Arafat, A.P.G

                                                            ---------------

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant application are that the private respondent by way of an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against SHO P.S Bakrani to record his FIR against the proposed accused, for allegedly committing the offence of mischief and criminal intimidation. On his application, learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, vide order dated 25.08.2016, directed DSP Bakrani to conduct enquiry and furnish report within seven days. It was not furnished. Consequently, the private respondent filed an application u/s.3 & 4 of Contempt of Court Act for action against DSP Bakrani for his failure to conduct the requisite enquiry in terms of above said order. Consequently, the enquiry was conducted, wherein it was reported by DSP Bakrani that the allegation leveled are not proved and there is dispute between the parties over plot/land yet the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana vide order dated 24.09.2017 directed SHO P.S Bakrani, to record statement of the private respondent u/s.154 Cr.PC, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl. Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by the applicant in person that learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana was having no authority to have ordered for recording of statement of the private respondent u/s.154 Cr.PC on contempt application. By contending so, he sought for reversal of the impugned order.

                        Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order.

                        Learned counsel for the private respondent sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the order impugned is well reasoned.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The direction for recording statement of the private respondent u/s.154 Cr.PC has been passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, on contempt application whereby prosecution of DSP Bakrani was sought for on account of his failure to conduct enquiry and submit his report, which appears to be significant. Be that as it may, in enquiry report, it was stated by DSP Bakrani that the allegation leveled are not proved and there is dispute between the parties over the plot/land. Such enquiry report was not rebutted by either of the party by filing their respective objection or counter affidavit to it, which makes it believe that it was accepted. In that situation, there was hardly need for learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, to have ordered for recording statement of the private respondent u/s.154 Cr.PC for allegation of mischief and criminal intimidation.

                        In view of above, the impugned order could not be sustained, it is set-aside with direction to the private respondent to file a direct complaint of the incident before the Court having jurisdiction, if so is advised to him.

                        The instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                                      JUDGE

--