ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

 

                                              Cr.Misc.Appl.No.S- 27   of   2014

                                                                                                                                                                                               

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

14.04.2014.

 

Mr. Ashfaque Ahmed Lanjar, Advocate for applicant.

Miss Saima Katto, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State.

                                    =

 

MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J:-             Through instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 31.12.2013, whereby the application filed under section 22-A Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR against the proposed accused has been dismissed by learned Justice of Peace / IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad (“Judge”).

 

2.         Briefly, the facts are that the applicant had filed a complaint, stating therein that some three months back, one Pir Nabi Dad was severally beaten by respondents No.6 and 7 and four others. Thereafter, the matter was reported to P.S. Khadhar and his N.C. was recorded and letter dated 10.08.2013 was issued to M.L.O Sakrand for examination of said Pir Nabi Dad. It is further stated that on 17.09.2013, the applicant alongwith Pir Nabi Dad and Pir Iftikharuddin went to SHO PS Khadhar for seeking protection and around 4.00 p.m. in the office of SIP Nizamuddin, the applicant saw respondents No.6 and 7 alongwith others who were already sitting in the office of SHO. The applicant who had earlier filed a case before the learned 1st Additional & Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad and had obtained an order dated 26.08.2013, presented the same to the concerned police officials, but instead of according necessary protection to the applicant, they became annoyed and started abusing the applicant, whereafter SHO was instigated by them to teach lesson to the applicant after which the respondents No.4 and 5 started beating the applicant and took away Rs.35,000/- from the applicant as well as a wrist watch and also put the applicant in lock up of P.S. Khadhar for three days, whereafter, the applicant was handed over to SHO PS Airport, Shaheed Benazirabad and was subsequently released on bail. In these circumstances, the applicant filed an application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge for registration of FIR against the police officials as well as private respondents No.6 and 7 which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

 

3.         Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that learned Judge was misdirected in dismissing the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. as the act of respondents was of high handedness and the applicant was detained unlawfully for three days in police lock up without any reasonable cause and justification. The learned Counsel prayed for grant of instant application with directions to the concerned SHO to register the FIR against the proposed accused.

 

4.         Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.7 has filed objections and contended that action initiated by the present applicant is in fact a counter blast in respect of FIR No.83/2013 in which the present applicant is nominated and has concealed such facts from this Court and has also not stated that four other accused nominated in the said FIR had moved separate applications under section 22-A Cr.P.C. with different and fake stories but all such applications were dismissed; except one, which was allowed and FIR No.91/2013 has been lodged against the respondents No.6 to 8 who are on interim bail from this Court. Learned Counsel further contended that instant complaint was out of grudge and as a revenge against respondents No.6 to 8 and since the applicant has not come with clean hands, his application is based on malafide and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.         Learned D.P.G. has supported the impugned order and contended that the alleged illegal detention for three days was not possible and further no complaint in this regard either by the applicant or anybody else was reported to any Court and therefore, such allegation is unfounded. Learned D.P.G. further contended that since the applicant has not come with clean hands before this Court and is trying to manage false and fake stories, as such the instant application is liable to be dismissed.

 

6.         I have heard both the learned counsel as well as learned D.P.G. and perused the record.

 

7.         It appears from the record as stated by the applicant that he was detained in lock up unlawfully for three days; however the applicant has failed to specify and disclose the date and time of either any such illegal detention. He has also failed to bring on record any complaint made in this regard before this Court. It is very strange to note that a person, who is allegedly detained unlawfully for three days, neither brings any complaint by himself nor through any of his relatives; nor seeks any intervention from any Court of competent jurisdiction. It further appears that the applicant is already nominated in FIR No.83/2013 and the present complaint seems to be a counter blast in respect of the FIR registered earlier in time and as such the applicant has not come with clean hands before this Court. It is also surprising to note that though the alleged incident as per the applicant took place on 17.09.2013, however the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned Judge on 11.11.2013 and on a Court query, the learned Counsel for the applicant has been unable to justify the delay of almost two months in making such application for registration of FIR against the respondents. The applicant has also concealed material facts from this Court regarding filing of applications in similar circumstances by other persons nominated in FIR No.83/2013 as well as the fate of such applications. The matter seems to be of enmity between the parties, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. with a proper and reasoned order, which in my view is correct in law and has been passed after considering the facts of the instant case, hence the instant application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

 

8.         In view of such position, I had dismissed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by means of a short order dated 14.04.2014 and the above are the reasons in support of such dismissal.  

 

           

           

                                                                                                            JUDGE

 

 

 

Tufail