ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Criminal Misc. Application No.S-398 of 2017

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of main case.

2. For hearing of M.A.No.4286/2017 (561-A)

.-.-.-.-.

19.11.2018

Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate for the Applicant.

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

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

                        By way of instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin the applicant has impugned an order dated 30.11.2017, whereby the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kandhkot, has directed SHO P.S Kandhkot, the operative part whereof reads as under;

“The concerned SHO has disclosed that the present petitioner has not appeared at police for registration of FIR and he further disclosed that if the petitioner appeared at P.S his statement shall be recorded according to law”.

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin are that as per the private respondent, the applicant and others allegedly after keeping him and his witnesses under wrongful restraint and fear of death, robbed them of their motorcycle, CNIC Cards and cash worth Rs.20,000/-. They went at Police Station Karampur to lodge report of the incident, it was not recorded and then they approached learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, for issuance of direction against SHO P.S Karampur to record their FIR, consequently, the impugned order was passed.  

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties are disputed over the landed property, the private respondent in order to settle such dispute is intending to involve the applicant and others in a false case with collusion of the police. By contending so, he sought for reversal of the impugned order.

                        Learned A.P.G did not support the impugned order while none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3, to argue the instant Crl.Misc.Application, without any lawful justification.

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

5.                    Admittedly, the parties are already disputed over the landed property and civil litigation between them is going on before the Courts having jurisdiction. In that situation, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent in order to settle his dispute with the applicant and others over the landed property, is  intending to involve them in this case, could not be lost sight of.

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 above, the impugned order is set aside, the private respondent is set at liberty to 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.

J U D G E

..