ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

     Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-106 of 2023.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on M.A.No.1590/2023.

2. For orders on office objections ‘A’.

3. For hearing of main case.

17.04.2023

                        Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, Advocate for the applicant.

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

1.         Urgency granted.

2.         Deferred.

3. It is alleged by the applicant that the proposed accused have committed theft of his four goats. On the basis of such allegation, he by making an application under Section 22-A/B Cr.PC, sought for direction against the police to record his FIR; it was dismissed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, vide order dated 28.03.2023, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant application under Section 561-A Cr.PC.

            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 applicant by way of impugned order, therefore, such order being illegal is liable to be set aside by this Court with direction to police to record FIR of the incident at the verbatim of the applicant.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            As per report furnished by Incharge Complaint Cell, the applicant is intending to get a false FIR registered against the proposed accused on the basis of false story. The proposed accused are said to be broker/watchmen of one Gahano Khan who has already made complaint against the applicant with S.S.P Larkana.  In these circumstances, learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace was right to dismiss the application of applicant by way of impugned order which is not found illegal to be interfered with by this Court.

In case of Rai Ashraf and others vs Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others    (PLD 2010 Supreme Court-691) it has been held by Hon’ble 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.”

            In view of above, the instant Crl.Misc.Application fails and is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE