ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-325 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

25.11.2021

                        Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocate for private respondent.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- The applicant by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application has impugned order dated 04.10.2021, passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby he has directed SHO, P.S Civil Line Larkana, to record statement of the private respondent for the purpose of FIR.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no incident as alleged by the private respondent has taken place; the private respondent being father of the applicant has abandoned him and his mother by marrying a second wife and he in order to deprive him of his right of inheritance at the instance of his second wife is intending to involve him in a false case.      By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

                        Learned A.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order by contending that there is dispute between the parties over the property which could only be resolved by a Civil Court. However, learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application.

                        I have considered the above argument and perused the record.

                        Admittedly, the applicant is son of private respondent. It has also come on record that the private respondent is living separately with his second wife. It is said that there is dispute between the parties over the property. In that context, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant in a false case malafidely only to deprive him of his right of inheritance.

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, directing the private respondent to have a re-course u/s.200 Cr.PC, if so is advised to him.

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

                                                                                                      JUDGE