ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-172 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

12.11.2021

                        Mr. Muzafar Ali Wadho, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Amanullah Luhur, Advocate for private respondent.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, A.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is case of the private respondent that the applicant and others by causing him lathi blows, attempted to abduct his daughter Mst.Parveen. On refusal of police to record his FIR, he by making an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against the police to record his FIR for the above said incident, which was issued by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kandhkot, vide order dated 19.05.2021, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application under section 561-A Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no incident as alleged by the private respondent has taken place and he in order to settle his matrimonial dispute with the applicant and others is intending to involve them in false case malafidely. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

                        Learned A.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.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        Admittedly, the parties are disputed over matrimonial affairs. None has been abducted and nature of the injury allegedly sustained by the private respondent has not been disclosed. In these circumstances the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant and others in a false case to settle his matrimonial dispute with them malafidely, could not be lost sight of.  

            In case of Rai Ashraf and others vs Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 691) it has been held by Hon’ble apex Court that;

“The learned High Court had erred in law to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent No.1 without realizing that the respondent No.1 had filed application before the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to restrain the public functionaries not to take action against him in accordance with the LDA Act 1975, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, therefore, respondent No.1 had filed petition with mala fide intention and this aspect was not considered by the learned High Court in its true perspective.”

                        In view of above, the impugned order is set aside with an advice to the private respondent to have a recourse under section 200 Cr.PC.

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

                                                                                                       JUDGE