THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Misc. Application No.460 of 2019

Applicant                    :           Suleman Shah s/o Syed Hameed Shah

                                                Through Mr. Malik Khushhal Khan, Advocate.

Respondent No.1, 2&4:          (1) The State

(2) Station House Officer PS Jackson, Karachi (West)

(4) SSP West, Complaint Cell, District West, Karachi

Through Mr. Abdullah Rajput, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh along with Inspector Malik Adil Khan, SHO PS Jackson, Karachi.

Respondents No.3      :           (3) Habib-ur-Rehman son of Lal Gul (present) Through Mr. Tahir-ur-Rehman Tanoli, Advocate

Date of hearing           :           06.12.2019

Date of Order             :           06.12.2019

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of MA No.11013/19.

ORDER

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. – This Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant (Suleman Shah) against the Order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) in Criminal Misc. Application No.1484/2019 filed by respondent No.3 against the applicant, whereby the learned trial Court after perusing the record and hearing passed the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, it would be proper and relevant to reproduce the operative part of the said order, which reads as under:

   “I have heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the report submitted by concerned SHO as well as medical report issued by MLO JPMC which reflects that cognizable offence has been made out.

   In view of the above factual position, the SHO concerned is directed to record the statement under Section 154 CrPC of the petitioner/ applicant and if the cognizable offence is made out then lodged the FIR against the proposed accused according to law.”

2.         Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the present applicant got FIR registered vide FIR No.426/2019 against the respondent No.3 at PS Jackson, Karachi whereas Cr. Misc. No.1484/2019 filed by the respondent No.3 is a counterblast of the said case. He further submits that the order passed by the trial Court is against law and on facts, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.

3. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned order by arguing that the impugned order passed by trial Court is perfect in law and on facts and further submitted that the present applicant caused injuries to the respondent No.3 and this fact according to him is verified by the medical report on record.

4. Learned DPG has also supported the impugned order.

5. Parties’ advocates have been heard and record perused.

6. The main grievance of the respondent No.3 is that though the present applicant has committed cognizable offence and caused injury to the respondent No.3 on his body, but no FIR was registered and then he approached to the trial Court for redressal of his grievances. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record the photocopy of MLO report in respect of injuries on the body of respondent No.3. It is settled law that whenever cognizable offence is made out, it is the duty of the state to lodge FIR of such offence against the wrongdoer.

7. In view of the above, I find no merit in this Cr. Misc. Application, which is dismissed along with listed applications. However, respondent No.3 is directed to approach the concerned police station for recording his statement and after recording his statement, if the SHO comes to the conclusion that the cognizable offence is made out then case be registered against the wrongdoer and then proceed the matter further as per law.  

    JUDGE

asim/pa