ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Misc. Application No. 275 of 2022

(Muhammad Tariq vs. SSP District Malir Karachi and others)

Date Order with signature of Judges

1. For orders on M.A. No.6761 /2023 (U/A)

2. For orders on office objection a/w reply as at flag “A”

3. For hearing of main case

13.06.2023

Mr. Hakim Ali advocate for applicant

Ms. Rubina Qadir DPG

Rafiq Ahmed proposed accused No.2

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Irshad Ali Shah, J.- It is alleged by the applicant that his jeep was taken away by the proposed accused by resorting to blackmailing. By making such allegation, he by of filing an application under Section 22-A/B Cr.P.C sought for direction against the police to record his FIR for the said incident, it was dismissed by learned V-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Malir, Karachi vide order dated 13.04.2022, which is impugned by him before this Court by preferring the instant Cr. Misc. Application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the cognizable offence has taken place, therefore, learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace ought not to have dismissed the application of the applicant. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order with direction to police to record FIR of the incident at the verbatim of the applicant.

Learned DPG for the state and proposed accused No.2 by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of instant application by contending that there is dispute between the parties over sale and purchase of jeep and the applicant is intending to involve the innocent persons in a false case with ulterior motives.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

As per impugned order, it was a second application in its series, earlier one was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant has not been able to disclose the parentage of the proposed accused, who allegedly had taken away his jeep by resorting to blackmailing. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the incident as alleged by the applicant has actually taken place and for that his FIR is not being recorded by the police then he has alternate remedy to exhaust by filing direct complaint of the incident before the Court having jurisdiction; such remedy, if is exhausted beside being alternate would be adequate under the circumstances of the case.

In case of Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 S.C 691), it has been held by 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.”

No illegality is apparent which may justify this Court to make interference with the impugned order by way of instant Criminal Misc. Application, it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E