ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Application No.S-230 of 2018

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of case.

2. For hearing of M.A.No.4200/2018.

.-.-.-.-.

11.10.2018

Mr. Abid Hussain Qadri, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

                   On application u/s.22-A & B Cr.PC, learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, vide his order dated, 07.09.2018, directed SHO, P.S, K.T.Mumtaz,   to record statement of the private respondent u/s.154 Cr.PC against the applicant and others, for allegedly firing at him with intention to commit his murder, such order the applicant has impugned before this Court by way of instant application u/s.561-A Cr.PC

                   It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the firing is ineffective one; the private respondent in order to satisfy his dispute with the applicant and others over landed property is intending to involve them in a false case malafidely. By contending so, he sought for reversal of impugned order.

                    Learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.P.G have sought for dismissal of the instant application by contending that the order impugned is well reasoned.

                   I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                   Admittedly, there is dispute between the parties over landed property and the firing is ineffective one. In that situation, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant and others in a false case with intention to satisfy his dispute with them over landed property malafidely, could not be lost sight of.

          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.”

          In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the order impugned could not be sustained. It is set-aside. The private respondent may file a direct complaint of the incident before the Court having jurisdiction, if so is advised to him.

          The instant Crl.Misc.Application is disposed of accordingly.                                                                                                                                                                               JUDGE

..