IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Misc.
Application No.S-644 of 2020.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
For hearing of main case.
O R D E R.
14.02.2022.
Mr.Rashid Khan Durrani,
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Ali GulAbbassi, Advocate
for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar,
Additional Prosecutor General.
-.-.-.-
AMJAD ALI
SAHITO, J: Through instant
application, applicant Munawar Alam Khan has impugned an order dated 21.10.2020,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Justice of Peace, Sukkur, whereby his application u/s22-A &
22-B Cr.PC was dismissed.
2.
Per learned counsel for applicant that learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II/ Justice of Peace Sukkur has not passed a speaking
order as he has not considered the injuries received by the applicant
MunawarAlam Khan. He further submits that the proposed accused have committed
cognizable offences and SHO was duty bound to lodge FIR of applicant against
respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in a book available with him under section 154 Cr.P.C
but he has not performed his legal duty and learned Justice of Peace has
dismssed his application u/s.22-A & 22-B Cr.PC. He has relied upon the
cases of GhulamAbbass vs. SHO Police Station Darri and 2 others (2014 P.Cr.L.J
1347), Mst. Kounjan vs. SHO Police Station LakhiGhulam Shah and 2 others,
Muhammad Fazul vs. The Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Karachi and
another (2013 P.Cr.L.J 168) and Rab Nawaz vs. SHO Police Station, Daharki and 4
others.
3.
On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.G. supported
the impugned order by submitting that actually no incident has taken place and
the applicant wants to implicate respondent No.1who is Member of Sindh Bar
Counseldue to dispute in between the legal fraternity/Members of Bar Council,
hence the instant Criminal Misc. Application is misconceived and the same may
also be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant,
learned counsel for the respondents/ proposed accused, learned Addl.P.G
appearing for the State and perused the record.
5.
On Court enquiry learned counsel for applicant
was asked whether Mr. Qurban Ali Malano/respondent No.1 was present at the
place of alleged incident to which learned counsel for applicant has stated
that he was not present at the time of incident. Learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 submits that Mr. Qurban Ali Malano is a Senior Advocate of High
Court Bar Association and Member of Sindh Bar Council and he was not present at
the place of incident which fact is admitted by applicant’s Counsel. The
allegations against respondent No.1 is that on his instigation, his
brother-in-law /respondent No.2 RahibMalano has committed the offence shown in
the Misc. Application for registration of FIR. It reflects from the record that
Dr. TasleemAkhterKhamisani Medical Superintendent GMMMC Hospital Sukkur has
filed his comments before learned Justice of Peace /Additional Sessions Judge-V
Sukkur wherein he submitted that he has provided treatment to applicant
MunawarAlam Khan and has not issued medical certificate for the reason that
applicant failed to bring police letter. Moreover, the learned Justice of Peace
has dismissed the application under section 22-A B Cr.P.C on the ground that
already two FIRs by each group are pending trial. Admittedlydispute is in between
legal fraternity and the applicant wants to lodge a FIR against a Senior
Advocate/ Member of Sindh Bar Councilwho has not committed any offence as admitted
by the learned counsel for applicant. Further, the learned counsel for the
applicant pleaded that police officials are under influence of the respondent
No.1, as such concerned police has refused to lodge FIR against respondents.
6.
In the case of Habibullah v. Political
Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCMR-951), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Pakistan has observed that filing of private complaint could provide an
equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire
evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could adequately be
redressed while considering the fact that respondent/SHO, who in the report and
para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the petitioner’s case, therefore,
it could not be expected from the concerned SHO that he would carry independent
and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the
provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective
of the facts and and circumstances whichcould call for exercise of
judicial restraint in turning down the request for registration of FIR in view
of the conduct of the party besides considering that adequate remedy in the
form of private complaint being available to the petitioner.
7.
In view of the above circumstances and the
dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case, cited
supra, I am of the humble view that it would be appropriate for the applicant
to exhaust such remedy by filing a direct complaint before the Court having
jurisdiction, where he could lead the entire evidence himself and his grievance
could adequately be redressed. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel
for applicant are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present
hence the same are not applicable.
8. With above observations,
the application in hand being merit-less is
dismissed accordingly.
J
U D G E
Irfan/PA