ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P.No.S- 75 of 2022
(Sher Ali vs. Province of Sindh and others)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before: Irshad Ali Shah J.
For hearing of main case
------------------------------
19.07.2022
Mr. Abdul
Zubaid advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Talib
Hussain Memon Asstt. P.G
-------------------------------------------
It is stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that on filing of an application under Section 22-A and B Cr.P.C,
learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West
directed SHO P.S Manghopir to record statement of petitioner for purpose of FIR
or otherwise, vide order dated 28.08.2021; such order was not complied with,
therefore, petitioner by filing an application sought for prosecution of the said
SHO under contempt proceedings, it too was disposed of by learned Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace/IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West directing SHO PS Manghopir
to record statement of petitioner for purpose of FIR or otherwise within three
days and to furnish such report vide order dated 10.11.2021, which is not being
complied with and in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this
Court for direction to SHO Manghopir to make compliance of above said orders of
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West.
SHO PS Manghopir in his report has stated that the
petitioner has not approached him for the needful. If it is believed that the
orders passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for recording of statement of
petitioner for purpose of FIR or otherwise, are not being complied with then the
petitioner could have approached the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace again for
the needful. High Court is not supposed to execute or pass orders for
compliance of the orders passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, that too in
exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant petition
being misconceived is dismissed.
J U D G E