IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Crl. Misc. Appln.                   :           Feroz Khan Kalhoro vs.

No. S- 464 of 2021.                          SHO P.S Hyderi &Others

 

For the Applicant                 :           Mr. Ghulam Muhiyuddin Durrani, Advocate

                                                           

Date of hearing                    :           11.02.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           11.02.2022

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J.         (1) Over ruled. (2) Granted; subject to all exceptions. (3) Applicant has impugned the order dated 19.11.2021 delivered by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C was dismissed. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced herein below:

 

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length, perused the contents of the criminal miscellaneous application of applicant Feroz Khan. The applicant in his application stated in para NO.7 that on 01.10.2021 at about 4.00 p.m. the applicant alongwith his brother Zahid Hussain went to proposed accused and demanded his rupees from the proposed accuse but he annoyed and issued murders threats to the applicant. As such the proposed committed cognizable offence, therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted, hence the applicant prayed for directions to the respondent No.1 to register his F.I.R against the proposed accused. But on the enquiry, applicant stated that accused never came nor issued murderous threats to the applicant on 01.10.2021. The SHO, Police Station Hyderi stated that proposed accused has shifted to unknown place and he is absconder of Crime No.79/2016 and Crime No.44/2016 of Police Station Hyderi and he has been declared as proclaimed offenders in the aforesaid cases. SHO further reported the no any incident has taken place on 01.10.2021 as alleged by the applicant in the instant criminal miscellaneous application.”

 

2.            Learned counsel submits that the proposed accused has committed fraud with the applicant/ complainant and there is pending land disputeinter se, hence, the impugned order ought to have taken same into the account. It is further stated that unless the impugned order is set aside the applicant shall not be able to resolve his private dispute.

 

3.            Heard and perused. Admittedly, the dispute of the applicant is extraneous to the offence. While the applicant has every right to seek adjudication of his private dispute, the same is not to be made the pretext for any criminal proceedings, unless warranted by law. Learned counsel for the applicant has impugned the aforesaid findings, however, has remained unable to set forth a case that such findings could not reasonably have been rendered on the underlying record. The learned Court has rendered an exhaustive order detailing as to how the case placed there before was found to be devoid of merit. The learned Court has clearly recorded the controversy and taken a decision there upon based on the record placed there before. No exception in such regard has identified to this court by the applicant's counsel and no patent illegality/irregularity has been identified.

 

4.            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.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.            In view of herein above, this application is determined to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

                                                                    JUDGE

                                                         

 


[1]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in NaheedNusrat 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.