IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Criminal Revision Application No.S-103 of 2017

 

 

Applicant:                                          Shehzad Muhammad Saleem Ansari, through Mr. Rajkumar D. Rajput, Advocate.

Respondents 1 to 9:                          Nemo.

State:                                                 Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G.

Date of hearing:                                 27.09.2021.

Date of decision:                                27.09.2021.

 

 

O R D E R

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:              This Cr. Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, in Direct Complaint No.09/2016 (impugned herein), filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

 

2.       Learned counsel for the applicant, at the very outset, submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind; besides against the facts of the case; that learned trial judge has also not considered the preliminary enquiry report furnished by the Magistrate nor were considered the statements of witnesses, according to law. He lastly submits that prima facie case for taking cognizance is made out but such complaint was dismissed by learned trial Court.

 

3.       Learned DPG has contended that a well-reasoned order has been passed by learned trial Court wherein each and every point of law has been elaborated therefore he supports the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of instant Criminal Revision Application.

4.       I have heard learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as learned DAG and have gone through the material available on record.

 

5.       Perusal of record reflects that applicant has filed several complaints against the Respondents as well as police officials; besides there are several contradictions in their statements recorded during preliminary enquiry. Earlier an application under Section 22 (6)(i) Cr.P.C was filed by wife of applicant Mst. Sana Shehnaz, which was dismissed by learned Justice of Peace by holding that application was filed with malafide intention and ulterior motives in order to entangle the proposed accused persons in litigation. Record further reveals that applicant has not filed license in respect of gold consultant and conceal such fact from the Court. I have also gone through the impugned order, which reflects that such order was passed with care and caution; besides well-reasoned. No any illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order. Resultantly, this criminal revision application is dismissed.

 

Judge

Faisal Mumtaz/PS