ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Misc. Application No. 415 of 2020

(Mehmood Alam vs. The State)

Date Order with signature of Judges

1. For orders on office objection at A

2. For hearing of main case

3. For hearing of M.A.No. 10018/2020

15.06.2023

Mr. Moizuddin Ahmed, advocate for applicant

Mr. Ghulam Akbar Assistant Advocate General Sindh

Ms. Rubina Qadir Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

-----------------------------------

It is alleged by the private respondent that he was having dispute with the applicant over property, who in order to satisfy such dispute with him snatched the important papers from his son by way of maltreatment. By maintaining such allegation, he by 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 issued by learned III-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Official Justice of Peace, Karachi East, vide order dated 24.10.2020, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring the instant Cr. Misc. Appln. u/s 561-A Cr.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant in a false case in order to satisfy with him his dispute over the property and such fact has been lost sight of by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order. By contending so, he sought for setting a side of the impugned order.

None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the private respondent. However, learned DPG for the State and Asstt. A.G Sindh by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of instant Cr. Misc. Application.

Heard arguments and perused record.

The direction issued by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is mainly to the extent that statement of the private respondent to be recorded by the police, if it constitutes a cognizable offence, then it should be registered in the book under section 154 Cr.P.C. No harm would be caused to the applicant, if such statement of the private respondent is recorded by the police and then is entered in 154 Cr.P.C book finding it to constitute a cognizable offence, even then the applicant has remedy to prove his innocence by joining the investigation before the police. No illegality is apparent which may justify this court to make interference with the impugned order.

In view of above, the instant criminal miscellaneous application fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E