IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Cr. Misc. Appln. 308 of 2021 Himath Ali Bhatti vs.
I/C P.P Derra & Others
For the Applicant : Mr. Sanaullah Gilal, Advocate
Date of hearing : 31.01.2022
Date of announcement : 31.01.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. (1) Over ruled (2) Learned counsel has impugned the order dated 17.09.2021, whereby Cr. Misc. Appln. No.168/2021 was dismissed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Kambar-Shahdadkot @ Kambar. Briefly stated, the application had been preferred before the concerned court seeking registration of F.I.R. and in determination thereof the impugned order read as follows:
"The report was called from concerned P.S. SHO P.P Dera as well DSP Public Complaint Redressal Cell Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber submitted their reports and stated that applicant and proposed accused party have tussle over property issues. However, the allegations applicant are false and fabricated. Injured was brought at PS and got medical letter from PS, which was also received at PS, which was non-cognizable and no any incident on the day of alleged date has taken place and applicant has never approached before P.P Dera or Complaint Cell.
I have given due consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for applicant and perused the Cr. Misc. Application, reports of SHO of P.P Dera and DSP Public Complaint Redressal Cell Kamber and material available on record, which shows that applicant and proposed accused are under tussle over property issues which is civil dispute, but applicant is trying to convert civil dispute into criminal dispute with false allegations as it is evident from the report of SHO P.P Dera &DSP Public Complaint Redressal Cell Kamber that allegations of applicant are devoid of truth and no any incident as alleged in proposed FIR has taken place within the jurisdiction of P.P Dera; therefore in above circumstances, the Cr. Misc. Application merits no consideration. As such the application is hereby dismissed, accordingly. "
2. The counsel was asked at the the very onset to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the impugned order, however, he remained unable to do so. The only argument articulated was that the order was contrary to the expectations of the applicant.
3. This court has considered the impugned order and is of the view that the findings arrived at are well reasoned and borne from the record there before, to which no cavil has been articulated by the applicant's counsel. The order prima facie demonstrates appreciation of the record / evidence and also shows that ample opportunity was provided to the concerned to state their case. Learned counsel has remained unable to identify any manifest infirmity in the impugned order, meriting interference.
4. It is trite law[1] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has remained unable to identify any infirmity with respect to the impugned order, therefore, no interference is merited, therewith. In view hereof, the present Criminal Misc. Application is hereby dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
[1] Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.