ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Misc Appln No.S-432 of 2024
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on office objection “A”.
2. For Order on M.A.No.7354/2024 (E/A).
3. For hearing of main case.
--------
07.02.2025
Mr. Nizamuddin Bhatti, Advocate for the Applicant.
--------------
Khalid Hussain Shahani, J.- The applicant, Ahsan Ali, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking judicial intervention against the order dated 18-11-2024, issued by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Larkana, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1837/2024, through which his application under Section 22-A(6)(i) for the registration of an FIR was rejected.
2. The applicant contends that his wife, Mst. Khadijat-ul-Kubra, whom he married three years ago, left their marital home on 02-04-2024, accompanied by her brother, and did not return. At the time of her departure, she was having two months pregnancy. When the applicant sought her return through the intervention of his in-laws, they refused to comply. Subsequently, his wife experienced a miscarriage. Meanwhile, she instituted legal proceedings for maintenance and dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Larkana, which remain pending. In response to these developments, the applicant approached the SHO of Police Station Haidry for the registration of an FIR, but his request was declined. Consequently, the applicant sought judicial direction for the registration of the FIR, but his application was dismissed, leading to the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on the record. During the proceedings, the applicant's counsel asserted that the miscarriage suffered by the applicant's wife was deliberately induced with the alleged involvement of her in-laws. However, it was acknowledged that no medical evidence had been presented to substantiate the claim of intentional or deliberate miscarriage.
4. Upon examining the impugned order, it is evident that the proposed accused, Mst. Khadijat-ul-Kubra, appeared before the learned Justice of Peace, Larkana, and stated that no such incident of deliberate miscarriage had occurred. She further clarified that the alleged claim was fabricated; infact, she was driven out by her husband’s house, such fact compelled her to file a suit for maintenance and dissolution of marriage, which is/was currently sub-judice before the competent court of law. It is undisputed that the applicant has a baby girl from the marriage, and no medical evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the claim of an intentional or deliberate miscarriage to establish a case within the defination of Isqat-i-Haml provided under section 338 PPC by the proposed accused. Instead, the stance of the proposed accused is found to be credible, asserting that the miscarriage resulted from severe mental stress, which can scientifically contribute to early pregnancy complications. According to her, the stress stemmed from being driven out by the applicant, prompting her to file the suit for maintenance and dissolution of marriage before the appropriate court.
5. Upon evaluation of the facts and circumstances presented by the applicant, it is evident that no cognizable offence punishable under section 338-A PPC has been established. Therefore, it is not obligatory for the court to direct the police to register a case, particularly when there appears to be a prima facie indication of malice on the applicant's part. The court must exercise caution before issuing such directives, as orders passed in a routine or mechanical manner could jeopardize the liberty of individuals against whom such orders are passed. Given the circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for interference with the impugned order. Consequently, the application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in liminie.
JUDGE