IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Application No.S-250 of 2021

Applicant: Abdul Waheed and others Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate.

Respondent No.2: Mst. Sarwar w/o Gul Muneer through Mr. Qurban Ali Shar, Advocate.

State: Through Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional P.G.

Date of hearing: 22.11.2021

Date of decision: 22.11.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 16.04.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Mirpur Mathelo, wherein an application under Section 22-A(6)(i) & 22-B Cr.P.C, filed by the Respondent No.2, was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Mirpur Mathelo, without applying his judicious mind, in a hurriedly manner, passed the impugned order, which is not tenable under the law; that there is criminal record against the son of Respondent No.2 and in order to save skin of her son, she has filed an application for registration of FIR against the police officials; that neither applicants have ever trespassed into the house of Respondent No.2 nor taken away any household articles; that Respondent No.2 is household lady then how she had identified the applicants with their names and designations; that the motive behind filing of application is only to save skin from the clutches of law; that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. At the end, he submits that instant application be allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Justice of Peace may be set-aside. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance upon the case law reported as 2010 YLR 189, 2018 YLR 318, 2014 MLD 1033 and unreported orders both dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Application Nos.560 of 2019 & 870 of 2017.

3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2 submitted that learned Justice of Peace has rightly passed the impugned order directing the SHO to record the statement of Respondent No.2 as applicants have illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the house of Respondent No.2, by taking away household articles and cash from her house, hence this Court does not require any interference in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this application.

4. Learned DPG has supported the impugned order and submits that cognizance offence is made out from contents of application as well as order passed by learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace wherein applicants, being police officials, have trespassed into the house of Respondent No.2 and had taken away household articles; however he could not controvert the fact of admitted enmity between the parties and criminal record against the son of Respondent No.2.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. Record reflects that there is criminal record against the son of Respondent No.2, hence such fact cannot be ignored and the application filed by the Respondent No.2 alleging therein that applicants/police officials trespassed into her house and taken away household articles, which appears to be false and forged one as how Respondent No.2, being household lady, can identify the applicants with their names and designations. The application filed by Respondent No.2 seems to be counter blast in order to save skin of her son from the clutches of law; besides cause harassment to the applicants’ party to settle his account of animosity.

7. It is observed that the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C have been misused in a number of cases. The wisdom was not that any person who is discharging of duties takes an action against the accused would be subjected to harassment by invoking provision of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. The Courts in mechanical manner should not allow application under Section 22-A & B and should apply its mind as to whether the applicant has approached the court with clean hands or it is tainted with malice. Unless such practice is discharged, it would have far reaching effect on the police officials who in discharge of duties take actions against them. Reliance be placed on the case of Imtiaz Ahmed Cheema vs. SHO Police Station Dharaki, Ghotki and 2 others.

8. The law has to be interpreted in a manner that its protection extends to every one. The criminal record of son of Respondent No.2 was though produced before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace but the same was not considered in proper manner.

9. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Mirpur Mathelo, is not tenable under the law; besides carries no weight in the eyes of law hence the same is hereby set-aside.

10. Application in hand is allowed accordingly.

Faisal Mumtaz/PS JUDGE