ORDERS SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-442 of 2024

 

Date	Orders with signature of Judge

 

1.               For orders on office objection.

2.               For hearing of main case.

 

23-01-2025

Mr. Insaf Ali Mirani, advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

This is an application seeking review of the order dated 23.08.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Ex: Officio Justice of Peace-IV, Larkana. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained that there was a complaint, filed against Aijaz Ali (son of applicant) under provisions of PECA Ordinance, 2016. Aijaz Ali was arrested by Inspector Lutufullah Sodhar of F.I.A Sukkur Office. Learned counsel submits that Aijaz Ali was killed by Inspector Lutufullah Sodhar, whereas the impugned order reflects that State had taken the position that Aijaz Ali committed suicide during his confinement.

2.              Proposed accused Imtiaz Ahmed, Mst. Paras and Mst. Gulzar @ Hajani who were the complainants in the complaint filed before the F.I.A. are also present in court. By no stretch of imagination, can they be held responsible for Sodhar's alleged conduct. They only reported an offence Their appearance is no longer required. As far as Inspector Lutufullah Sodhar is concerned, the grievance of the applicant is against this Inspector, who is alleged to have killed Aijaz Ali while he was confined in the F.I.A. Crimes Circle, Sukkur.

3.              Through the impugned order, the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace has declined the request of the applicant to lodge the F.I.R against Inspector Lutufullah Sodhar for the murder of his son Aijaz Ali.

4.              A person who has information of an offence having been committed is entitled under the law to give such information to the police station having jurisdiction. It is up to the police then, in the first instance, to determine whether the information provided discloses an offence and if it does, whether it is a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence. The Cr.P.C. and the Police Rules provide ample instruction on how to proceed in either case.

5.              Given the above, the applicant may approach the competent police station with the information that he has. The police shall act in accordance with law. It is clarified that this order should not be interpreted to mean that a mandatory direction to register an F.I.R. is being made. The police shall act in accordance with law

6.              Application is disposed of in the above terms.

 

                                                                             Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A ****