IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Misc.
Application No.S-377 of 2023
Applicant: Major
(R) Adnan Kayani and 03 others through Mr.Shahid Hussain Rajput, Advocate.
Respondent No.2: Muhammad Juman through
Mr. Sikandar Ali Junejo, Advocate.
The State: Through
Sardar Ali Shah, Additional P.G.
Date of hearing: 27.11.2023
Date of decision: 27.11.2023
O
R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, the
applicants have assailed the order dated 03.06.2023, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Daharki, wherein an application
under Section 22-A(6)(i) & 22-B Cr.P.C, filed by the Respondent No.2, was
allowed.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants, at the very outset, submits
that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Daharki,
without applying his judicious mind, in a hurriedly manner, passed the impugned
order, which is not tenable under the law; that there appear civil dispute in
between the parties and the respondent wants to register a false case by
converting the civil litigation into criminal; that neither the applicants have
ever trespassed into the lands of Respondent No.2 nor caused or damage to his
crop; that the land in dispute was purchased by the Mari Petroleum Gas Company
Limited for its use and the respondent was paid entire amount in lieu of
compensation; that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. At
the end, he submits that instant application be allowed and the impugned order
dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace may be
set-aside. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed reliance upon
the case law reported as 2010 YLR 189, 2018 YLR 318, 2014 MLD 1033 and
unreported orders both dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc.
Application Nos.560 of 2019 & 870 of 2017.
3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2 submitted
that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has rightly passed the impugned order
directing the SHO to record the statement of Respondent No.2 as applicants have
illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the land of Respondent No.2, and
caused damage to the crop so also issued murderous threats, hence this Court
does not require any interference in the impugned order and prayed for
dismissal of this application.
4. Learned Addl.P.G has not supported the impugned order and
submits that from the contents of application no case for cognizance offence is
made out; that civil dispute is admitted by the parties and only the civil
court is competent to decide the same. Lastly, he submits that respondent No.2
wants to convert a civil dispute into the criminal by filling instant
application which was liable to be dismissed before the lower forum but without
going into the real facts it was allowed.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record with their able assistance.
6. Record reflects that the matter was inquired by the DSP
complaint cell by recording statements of both the parties after the notice of
justice of peace and such report was furnished before the justice of peace. The
report supports the version of the applicants that the MPCL Company purchased a
land about 25 Ghuntas in the year, 2008 from the father of respondent No.2 to
which company paid half of the payment but the father of respondent No.2 had
not transferred the land in favour of the company. The documents attached with this
application viz. copy of sale agreement and the documents of bank showing some
payments to the father of the respondent No.2 when were confronted with
respondent No.2 available in the Court who after going through admitted the
same and submits that entire payment was not made by the company to which
counsel for the applicants submits that the company is ready to pay the same
and the same will be subject to the condition that the respondent No.2 will
transfer the land in favour of the company. The respondent No.2 also submits
that the company has also occupied entire his land which was not purchased by
the company, this allegation has been denied by the counsel for the applicants
and submit that the company also purchased the lands from several persons under
the respective agreements and is enjoying the possession but the respondent
No.2 by using illegal methods is creating hindrance in the smooth working of
the company by leveling false allegations. From careful perusal of the contents
of the application filed before the justice of peace it appears that the
respondent No.2 has managed an story to book the employees of the company in
false case in order to obtain some illegal gains otherwise the story in respect
of the digging of the land and installing pipelines in the land in short period
of time is unbelievable and for that purpose a long time is required. It is
observed that there may appear some dispute in between the parties the same is
of civil nature for which only the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide
the issue.
7. It is observed that the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C have
been misused in a number of cases. The Courts in mechanical manner should not
allow application under Section 22-A & B and should apply its mind as to
whether the applicant has approached the Court with clean hands or it is
tainted with malice. The Justice of Peace if from the material placed before
him is of the opinion that an offence of cognizable nature is made out then to
issue directions for registration of the FIR and if found that there is some
dispute in between the parties which is of a civil nature then to dismiss the
application and restrain himself from issuance of directions for registration
of FIR. If this practice is continued to be allowed that in every case
directions are to be issued for registration of FIR that amounted harassment to
the poor peoples who face the investigation and the trial in the case may be
and ultimately would be acquitted. The law has to be interpreted in a manner
that its protection extends to everyone.
8. Under these circumstances, the application
in hand is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Daharki, is not tenable under the law; besides
carries no weight in the eyes of law hence, the same is hereby set-aside.
9. Application in hand is allowed accordingly.
Ihsan/*