ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-382 of 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For orders on M.A.No.5457/2020 (S/A)

03. For hearing of main case.

07.03.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicants.

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

                        =  *  a= * = * = * = * =

                        The applicants have impugned order dated 15.12.2020, passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby he has directed SHO, P.S Rehmatpur, to record FIR of the private respondent for the purpose of FIR, for demanding bribe for return of his buffaloes and other articles which they allegedly took away from his house.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are police officers and the private respondent is intending to involve them in a false case to get favour from them for his cousin Papan, who is a hardened criminal of the area.

                        None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent. However, learned Addl.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused record.

                        The applicants admittedly are police officials; therefore, directing SHO, P.S Rehmatpur, for recording statement of the private respondent for purpose of FIR against them for allegedly demanding bribe which is a scheduled offence, is appearing to be surprising. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought on record by the private respondent, which may prove his ownership over the robbed articles. In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicants in false case to get favour from them for his cousin Papan, could not be lost sight of. The impugned order, which even otherwise is not found to be speaking; is set aside.

            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.”

                        The instant criminal Misc.Application is disposed of accordingly together with listed application.

      JUDGE