ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-449 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.7771/2021 (U/A)

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.7772/2021 (E/A).

04. For hearing of main case.

13.12.2021

                        Makhdoom Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate for the applicant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

            It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that Mst.Kainat is wife of the applicant; she in order to satisfy some dispute with the applicant in collusion with rest of the culprits, aborted the pregnancy of six months and then threatened the applicant of dire consequences; therefore, the applicant sought for direction for recording his FIR against his wife and others, by making such application, which was dismissed by learned  Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, by way of impugned order, such order being illegal is liable to be set aside with direction to police to record statement of the applicant for the purpose of FIR.

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.                      

                        The applicant obviously is disputed with his wife and her parents and he in order to resolve such dispute is intending to involve them in false case malafidely under the pretext of abortion of his baby and criminal intimidation.

            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.”

                        No wrong even otherwise is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, which may justify making interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application under section 561-A Cr.PC,   it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

                                                                                                      JUDGE