ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-443 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For orders hearing of main case.

07.03.2022

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Sajjad Ali Jamarani, Advocate for the private respondent.

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

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        The applicants have impugned order dated 30.11.2021, passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby he has directed SHO, P.S Taluka, to record FIR of the private respondent for the purpose of FIR, for allegedly demanding illegal ransom for release of his Nadeem.

                        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 son Nadeem, who known as drug dealer of the area and is having a criminal record.

                        Learned Addl.P.G for the State did not support the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that all the cases against son of private respondent are false and motivated.

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.

                        The applicants admittedly are police officials; therefore, directing SHO, P.S Taluka, for recording statement of the private respondent for purpose of FIR against them for allegedly demanding bribe in shape of ransom, which is a scheduled offence, is appearing to be surprising. Obviously, son of the private respondent is having a criminal record. 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 son Nadeem, could not be lost sight of. Consequently, the impugned order 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.

                                                                                                     JUDGE