ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal
Misc. Application No. S-162 of 2020.
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For
Orders on MA No. 1796/2020.
2.
For
hearing of main case.
31-05-2021.
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bhatt, advocate for
the applicant.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
1.
Granted subject to
all just legal exceptions.
2.
It is contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that a cheque was issued in favour of the
applicant by the private respondents dishonestly, it was bounced, when was
presented before the concerned Bank for encashement, therefore, on refusal of
the police to record FIR, the applicant by making an application u/s 22A &
B Cr.P.C, sought for direction against the police to record his FIR, which has
been dismissed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of
Peace, Khairpur by way of his order dated 25-03-2020, such order being illegal
is liable to be set aside by this Court with direction to the police to record
the statement of the applicant for purpose of FIR.
3. I have considered the above arguments
and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, the applicant and the
proposed accused were partners in Business and dispute between them apparently is
over breach of contract. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the
proposed accused had issued a cheque in favour of the applicant dishonestly
even then, issuance of direction against the police to record statement of the
applicant for purpose of FIR could hardly be justified simply for the reason
that the evidence which is likely to be collected by the police on
investigation is already lying with the applicant, which he could produce before
the Court having jurisdiction by having a recourse u/s 200 Cr.P.C, if so is
advised to him.
5. In
case of Rai Ashraf and others Vs.
Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC-691), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“ Validity---Dispute between parties was over such
house---Applicant had secured restrain, order against respondent from Civil
Court, and for its violation, he had a remedy before Civil Court---Applicant
had an alternate remedy to file private complaints against
respondent---Applicant had filed another application before Ex-officio Justice
of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge to restrain public functionaries from taking
action against under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder---Application for registration of FIR had been
filed with malafide intention.”
6. No
illegality in impugned order even otherwise is pointed out by learned counsel
for the applicant, which may justify making interference with it, by this Court
in its inherent jurisdiction by way of instant Crl. Misc. Application u/s 561-A
Cr.P.C, it is dismissed in limine.
Judge
Nasim/P.A