IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,
LARKANA
Crl. Misc. Appln. No. S- 98 of 2024.
Mir Saifullah Mugheri. ……...…....…….Applicant.
Versus
SHO, P.S Hyderi others. ….......…...….Respondents.
Applicant Mir Saifullah Mugheri present in person.
Mr. Ameer Ali Sanjrani, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of proposed accused.
Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General along with SIP Ayaz Hussain Chandio and SIP Ali Dost on behalf of SSP Larkana.
Date of hearing: 16.05.2024.
Date of order: 16.05.2024.
ORDER
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J-. Through captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Application, applicant Mir Saifullah Mugheri has assailed the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in capacity of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby an application filed by the applicant seeking directions to register his FIR against the proposed accused, was dismissed.
The applicant submitted that learned Justice of Peace has erred in law and exercised discretion in favor of the proposed accused. He further added that the contents of application filed by the applicant under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C, prima-facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offense of stealing away dowry articles of his wife from the house by the proposed accused. Lastly, he prayed that his application may be allowed and respondent No.1 may be directed to record his statement.
Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the learned Ex-Officio/ Justice of Peace while dismissing the application of applicant observed that applicant and proposed accused No.1 are brothers inter-se, whereas rest of proposed accused are his nephews and that parties are disputing each other over inherited property and applicant wants to covert such civil dispute into criminal proceedings.
Further perusal of application under Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C also shows that before filing of application to Ex-Officio/Justice of Peace, the applicant approached the concerned police but they refused to record his statement.
In these circumstances, when version of applicant has already been negated by the concerned police with regard to happening of the alleged incident in a fashion as disclosed by the applicant in his application by refusing his to record statement, then what would be expected from the police, if the F.I.R of the applicant is registered. As such, proper course for the applicant would be that of availing adequate remedy in shape of direct complaint.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCMR 951), has observed that filing of private complaint could provide an equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could be adequately redressed considering also the fact that respondent/ SHO, who in the report and para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the petitioner’s case, therefore, it could not be expected from the concerned SHO that he would carry independent and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective of the facts and circumstances which could call for exercise of judicial restraint in turning down the request for registration of F.I.R in view of the conduct of the party besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint being available to the petitioner.
In view of the above circumstances and the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the applicant to institute a direct complaint before the Court having jurisdiction, where he could lead entire evidence himself and his grievance could be adequately redressed. With above observations, the application in hand being merit-less is dismissed.
Judge
Ansari