ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-127 of 2020

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case.

03-09-2020

 

Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.      

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Application are that there was dispute between the applicant and the private respondent over sale and purchase of the Car, the private respondent after carrying a feeling that he has been defrauded by the applicant by way of filing an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC, sought for direction for recording of his FIR, which was issued by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, vide his order dated 10.06.2020, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application. 

2.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence as alleged has taken place and if it is believed that there was breach of contract then the applicant was under obligation to have proved the same before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

3.                    Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the narration made by the private respondent constitutes a cognizable offence. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application.

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

5.                    There was transaction between the parties over sale/purchase of the Car. If there was breach of the contract, then it was to have been enforced through a Civil Court having jurisdiction. In that situation, the intention of the private respondent to involve the applicant in a criminal case with some malafide cannot be ruled out.

6.                    In case of Rai Ashraf & others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti & others (PLD 2010 SC-691), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 him 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 instant Crl.Misc.Application is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The private respondent however may exhaust his remedy under section 200 Cr.PC, if so is advised.

 

                                                                                             J U D G E