ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

 

Crl. Misc. Appln. No.S-152 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case. 

 

24.08.2020.

Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicant.

            Ms.Shahida Mashkoor Memon, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General,

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application has impugned order dated 22.06.2020, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shikarpur, directing SHO, P.S Lodhra, to record FIR of the private respondent at her verbatim, on disclosure of cognizable offence.

2.                    As per the private respondent, the applicant and others after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass in her house and others, have committed mischief and criminal intimidation by directing them to shift from their village. The incident as per her was reported to SHO, P.S Lodhra, but no formal FIR of the incident was recorded by the police, therefore, she by way of an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against SHO, P.S Lodhra, to record her FIR. It was issued accordingly by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shikarpur, by way of impugned order.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent and others are encroachers and they in order to justify their encroachment are involving the applicant and others in a false case malafidely. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

4.                    Learned A.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order, while learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the applicant and others are bent up to dispossess the private respondent and others from their houses duly allotted to them by the Mukhtiarkar, Goth Abad Scheme, Shikarpur.

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

6.                    Apparently, there is dispute between the parties over landed property/ownership of the houses, such dispute could only be resolved by a Civil Court having jurisdiction; therefore, the intention on part of private respondent to involve the applicant and others in a criminal case apparently is to satisfy the above dispute with them, it smells of malafide.

7.                    In case of Rai Ashraf & others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti & others (PLD 2010 SC-691), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court;

“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 him under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder---Application for registration of FIR had been filed with malafide intention”.

8.                    In view of above, the impugned order is set aside, the applicant, however, could exhaust remedy under section 200 Cr.PC, if so is advised to her.

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

                                                                                        J U D G E