ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S-492 of 2021.

Date of Hearing

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of M.A.No.9019/2021 (E/A).

3.   For hearing of Main Case.

24.02.2022.

Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Ajmeer Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the private respondent.

 Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State. 

                                                ---------------------

                        Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Application are that an FIR was lodged by the private respondent against the applicant with an allegation that he has issued a cheque in his favour dishonestly on account of purchase of Tea, which was bounced by the concerned Bank, when it was presented there for encashment; such FIR on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class; the cognizance whereof was taken by learned 3^rd Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, vide order dated 23.12.2021, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of about seven days; the cheque was stolen and then was misused and even otherwise it was bounced on account of incomplete signature of the applicant; the subject FIR was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class on the basis of honest investigation; therefore, the learned trial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance whereof by way of impugned order, same being illegal is liable to be set aside.

                        Learned D.P.G for the State and leaned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the charge has been framed against the applicant and he could prove his innocence adequately before learned trial Court.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        It is settled by now that the opinion of the police has got no binding effect on the Courts and the Courts have ample powers to agree or disagree with the police report. In the instant case, whatever stated in FIR by the private respondent, is finding support from ancillary evidence, which he has produced before the police during course of investigation. In that situation, the police was not justified to have recommended cancellation of his FIR on the basis of statements of independent persons by disbelieving the private respondent and his witnesses. By doing so, the police has exercised the powers of the Court, which alone is competent to declare the accused under accusation to be innocent or otherwise; therefore, learned trial Magistrate by taking cognizance of the incident by way of impugned order has committed no wrong, which may be corrected by this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application; it is dismissed accordingly together with listed application.

JUDGE