ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-252 of 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

13.12.2021

                        Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicant.

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

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH-J;- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application are that the private respondent allegedly was threatened to be killed by the applicant and others by making fires at him and on account of refusal of police to record his FIR, he by making an application u/s.22-A & B Cr.PC, sought for direction against the police to record his statement for the purpose of FIR, which was issued accordingly by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, vide order dated 09.09.2020, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.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; the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant in a false case malafidely in order to satisfy his dispute with him over the plot. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

                        None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent despite service of notice. Learned A.P.G for State did not support the impugned order.

                        I have considered the above argument and perused the record.

                        No fire shot has hit to the private respondent. The parties are disputed over possession of the plot. In that situation, issuance of direction for recording statement of the private respondent for purpose of FIR under the garb of criminal intimidation is not appearing to be justified.

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