ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Misc Appln No. S-41 of 2025
_______________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE_______
1. For orders on office objection “B”.
2. For hearing of main case.
03-03-2025
Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for the Applicant
--------
Khalid Hussain Shahani, J:- The applicant, Mst. Baddar Ganwas, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C, seeking judicial review of and redress against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Model Criminal Trial Court/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Kamber, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.111/2025. The said application, filed under Sections 22-A & 22-B(6)(i) Cr.P.C, was dismissed.
02. It is well settled by the superior judiciary that the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. is intended to ensure that aggrieved persons have access to legal remedies when law enforcement authorities refuse to register a cognizable offense. However, it has been repeatedly emphasized by the Honorable Supreme Court that such jurisdiction must be exercised with due caution, particularly where the allegations are based on conjecture, lack evidentiary support, or are prima facie driven by ulterior motives.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant argued, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to appreciate the evidentiary and circumstantial aspects of the case and dismissed the application without a proper application of mind. He added, on 10-08-2022, at about 10:00 a.m., Suhail, the son of applicant, was allegedly poisoned to death by unknown individuals under suspicious circumstances. The applicant later obtained information suggesting that the proposed accused were responsible for the act. The basis of this assertion, as per the applicant, is an alleged conversation overheard on 25.11.2024, wherein the proposed accused, while harvesting their land, purportedly admitted to having administered poison in Suhail’s tea to cause his death. Learned counsel maintains that this disclosure constitutes material evidence warranting the registration of a criminal case and thorough investigation.
04. It is settled principle of law that mere allegations, unsupported by direct evidence or independent witnesses, are insufficient to justify the registration of a criminal case. In the absence of any forensic, medical, or corroborative evidence linking the proposed accused to the alleged act, reliance solely on an unverified overheard statement is tenuous at best. Courts have repeatedly held that the standard for initiating criminal proceedings must be based on tangible evidence rather than speculative claims. Accordingly, a judicial review of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and evidentiary sufficiency.
05. The allegations set forth in the application lack legal credibility and evidentiary substantiation, as the alleged incident appears to be uncorroborated and unsupported by any direct evidence. The applicant has not furnished independent or reliable source establishing that her son was poisoned to death by the proposed accused. Mere accusations, devoid of corroborative material, cannot form the basis for initiating criminal proceedings. The burden lies on the complainant to produce prima facie evidence demonstrating a nexus between the accused and the alleged offense, which is absent in the present case.
06. Furthermore, the material available on record does not substantiate the claim that a homicidal act was committed by the proposed accused. It is a settled principle of law that allegations must be tested against objective scrutiny and not be entertained where the probability of false implication exists. The reports submitted by the DSP Public Complaint Redressal Cell Kamber Shahdadkot and the SHO PS Nasirabad indicate that Mst. Hameeda, the mother of the proposed accused Abdul Razzaq, had previously lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.185/2024 under Sections 376 and 511 PPC at PS Nasirabad against the applicant’s sons, Zohaib Ali and Ahsan Ali. This sequence of events raises serious concerns regarding the mala fide intent of the applicant, potentially driven by ulterior motives to counteract the prior registration of a case against her own family members.
07. In light of the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that criminal law should not be used as a tool for settling personal vendettas or retaliatory claims, the present application does not meet the requisite legal threshold for interference.
08. The impugned order is based on a well-reasoned analysis of the available record and is in consonance with the principles of justice. Given the lack of substantive evidence and the established jurisprudence against entertaining claims based on conjecture or retaliatory motives, no interference is justified in the exercise of this Court’s revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine.
JUDGE
S.Ashfaq/-