ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 174 of 2020

Priority case

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

3. For hearing of MA NO.1933/2020 (S/A)

01.06.2020

Mr. Alam Sher Bozdar Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Imran Ali Tagar Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;-. It is alleged by the private respondent that the applicant issued a cheque in sum of Rupees twelve lacs in his favour dishonestly, it was bounced by the concerned Bank when it was presented there for encashment, he therefore approached the police for recording of his FIR it was recorded, but such directions were issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Moro on application of the private respondent vide his order dated 20.04.2020 which is impugned by the applicant before this Court.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there was dispute between the parties over settlement of account and such account the applicant is ready to settle with the private respondent even today and the private respondent has sought for issuance of direction against the applicant malafidely. By contending so, he sought for setting-aside of the impugned order.

3. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by contending that the applicant has issued a cheque in favour of private respondent dishonestly.

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

5. Apparently the applicant and the private respondent were having the business deal; the cheque was issued by the applicant in favour of the private respondent obviously to settle the accounts towards the business deal; same it is said was dishonoured due to prevailing lock down situation on account of pandemic corona. If for the sake of argument, it is believed that the applicant has issued a cheque in favour of the private respondent dishonestly even then the issuance of direction against the police to record the FIR of the private respondent was not justified simply for the reason that the evidence which is likely to be collected by the police on investigation is already lying with the private respondent.

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 impugned order is set-aside with direction to the private respondent to have a recourse u/s 200 Cr.P.C, if so is advised to him.

8. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge