ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

     Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-20 of 2023.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on office objections ‘A’.

2. For hearing of main case.

14.04.2023

                        Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicant.

                        Mr. Atta Hussain Chandio, Advocate for private respondents.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                                                =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Application are that the applicant allegedly extended loan in favour of proposed accused which was returned to him by way of cheque; it was bounced when was presented before the concerned bank and then they threatened the applicant to be killed when he approached them for return of his money; on account of refusal by the police to record his FIR for the above said incident, he filed an application U/S.22-A & B Cr.PC for the purpose; it was dismissed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, vide order dated 10.11.2022, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court.

                        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 way of impugned order; such order being illegal is liable to be set aside with direction to police to record FIR of the applicant for the said incident, which is opposed by learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order.

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.

                        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 a direct complaint of the incident before the Court having jurisdiction; such remedy besides being alternate would be adequate in the circumstances in case like the present one, wherein the entire evidence which is likely to be collected by the police on investigation is already available with the applicant. Even otherwise, no illegality is pointed which may justify this Court to make interference with the impugned order. Consequently, the instant Crl.Misc.Application fails and is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE