ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-221 of 2020

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case.

24-09-2020

 

Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Abdullah Kehar, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.        

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- By way of instant Crl.Misc.Application, the applicant has impugned an order dated 11.08.2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby he has directed SHO, P.S, New Foujdari, to record statement of the private respondent and then to incorporate the same into 154 Cr.PC book under his intimation.

2.                    It is the case of private respondent that the applicant and others by way of maltreatment, attempted to abduct him when he was going back to his house after attending the Court of learned 4^th Civil Judge & J.M, Shikarpur, therefore, he approached learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who directed the police to record his statement for the purpose of FIR, by way of impugned order.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant and others in a false case in order to satisfy his old enmity with them; the impugned order is passed in slipshod manner, without providing chance of hearing to the applicant and others, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

4.                    Learned D.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 a cognizable offence has been committed by the applicant and others.

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

6.                    Admittedly, the parties are already disputed. No abduction has taken place and the injuries sustained by the private respondent as per final medical certificate have been opined to be “Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Damiyah”, which constitutes an offence punishable u/s.337-F(i) PPC, it is not cognizable offence. In that situation, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to implicate the applicant and others in a false case under pretext of allegation of his attempted abduction malafidely, could not be lost sight of.

7.                    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.”

8.                    In view of above, the impugned order is set aside. The private respondent however may exhaust his remedy u/s.200 Cr.PC, if so is advised to him.

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

 

                                                                                             J U D G E