IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P.No.S-3522 of 2014
Date of hearing : 13.10.2015
Mr. Khan Muhammad Sangi, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Hamzo Buriro, Advocate for respondents
No.2 to 7.
Mr. Agha Athar Hussain A.A.G.
---------------
O R D E R
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J:- Through captioned Constitution petition, petitioner Wahid Bux has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and impugned order dated 22.10.2014, passed by the Court of learned Ist Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Pano Akil on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer u/s 173 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.229 of 2014, P.S Pano Akil, U/Ss 324, 337-L (ii), 506/2, 427, 148, 149 and 114, PPC and approved summary report under ‘C’ Class.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant petition are that petitioner Wahid Bux lodged above F.I.R. on 25.08.2014, that on 22.06.2014, he along with his relatives, was available at his agricultural land, i.e Survey No.160 situated near Grid Station, Pano Akil, where car bearing No.F-7214 of Fahad was also parked. It is further alleged that at about 10:30 a.m., respondents armed with guns, hatchets and lathies came at their land. Accused Imam Bux asked the complainant party to vacate land in question, but on their refusal, accused Illahi Bux instigated other accused not to spare them and accused persons made straight fires but none from the complainant party sustained bullet injuries. It is further alleged that accused persons caused hatchet and lathi blows to the complainant party. Hence, complainant approached learned Justice of Peace and instant F.I.R was lodged.
3. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of P.Ws as well as independent persons and it revealed that accused persons are serving in Cantonment Pano Akil and they are innocent, and on the basis of such material Investigating Officer submitted summery report before learned Magistrate under ‘C’ Class, which was accepted vide impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the land in dispute was allotted to petitioner, and respondents being annoyed with him, caused hatchets and lathies injuries to the petitioner party; that petitioner approached concerned police for lodgment of F.I.R and issuance of letter for treatment but police did not adhere his request, and under the directions of the approached concerned Justice of Peace, FIR was registered; that during the incident, Ashfaq and Mushtaq Ahmed sustained injuries which are supported with medical certificates issued by MLO G.M.C. Hospital Sukkur; that police has not investigated the crime honestly, while P.Ws have supported the incident in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C, hence impugned order may be set aside and Investigating Officer may be directed to submit Challan before the concerned Magistrate. However, learned counsel for petitioner candidly submitted that subsequently allotment of disputed land was cancelled by the revenue authorities and at present petitioner is not in possession of said land.
5. While controverting the above submissions, learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that petitioner with ulterior motive has filed instant petition and concealed the material facts in the F.I.R as well as instant petition that accused persons are employees of Cantonment Pano Akil. Learned counsel placed a copy of letter issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer to area police for removal of encroachment from government land; that the injures caused to both the injured are simple in nature; that petitioner malafidely brought both injured at Sukkur Hospital to obtain certificate as per his own choice; that after cancellation of allotment of land in favour of petitioner, he has filed petition before this Court against Cantonment Officers alleging the harassment only to pressurize them not to initiate legal proceedings against him.
6. Learned A.A.G. supported the contention raised by learned counsel for respondents and submitted that impugned order is just and proper.
7. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, emanate that petitioner in F.I.R has alleged that on the day of incident, he along with his witnesses, was working on his land, while he has not filed any supportive ownership documents in respect of said land. Conversely, learned counsel for petitioner during the course of arguments admitted that allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of disputed land was cancelled by the revenue authorities and petitioner is not in possession of said land, such admission of the facts controverts the main allegations of the occurrence of the alleged offence and this vital aspect of the accusation could not be ignored.
8. Indeed, respondents are employees of Cantonment Pano Akil and well known to the petitioner being resident of same vicinity, but petitioner with ulterior motives concealed said fact while lodging the F.I.R. in their personal capacity. Perusal of letter dated 20.06.2014, reflects that Executive Officer of Cantonment, Pano Aqil had approached DSP Pano Aqil Cantonment, SHO P.S Pano Aqil as well as SHO P.S Cantt at Sultanpur, for removal of encroachment from Government land from un-authorized occupants/ encroachers bearing Survey Nos.152, 153, 154, 601/1, 160/2, 160/3, 160/4 and 220, Deh Kot Saddiq Shah, National Highway near VIP Gate, Wapda Grid Station, for utilization of Defence Department, Cantonment Board, Pano Aqil. Per medical certificates all the injures allegedly caused to both the injured are simple in nature and non-cognizable and even no material regarding the offence for attempt to commit the murder has been produced by the petitioner during the investigation. Conversely, Investigating Officer has collected record of Cantonment office that respondents are employees of the Cantonment and were available in their respective offices and were on their duties at the time of alleged incident. It is also worthwhile to refer that after cancellation of allotment of land by the revenue authorities in favour of petitioner, he has filed C.P No.D-2219 of 2014, before this Court against Cantonment Officers and Government Officials alleging harassment and providing protection with the sole purpose to compel them not to initiate legal proceedings against him.
9. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has not produced any proof that he had approached SHO Pano Akil or DSP Pano Akil for the lodgment of FIR and issuance of letter for medical treatment, but he directly approached Justice of Peace and obtained order for lodgment of FIR and directions to Civil Surgeon, G.M.S. Hospital, Sukkur, for examination of the injured and issuance of medical certificates, while at the door step Civil Hospital, Pano Akil and then Civil Hospital, Rohri are available for proper medical treatment, but Justice of Peace has not considered these aspects of the case and issued directions in mechanical manners without applying his prudent mind which is contrary to the wisdom and purpose of authority envisaged under section 22-A and 22- B, Cr.P.C.
10. Perusal of impugned order emanated that learned Judicial Magistrate has examined the material meticulously and passed a speaking and well discussed order and has not committed any material illegality or gross irregularity. It is well settled that each and every case is to be examined in perspective of its facts and circumstances. Magistrate is bound to analyze the summery report under section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by Investigating Officer supported with entire material thoroughly by applying his prudent mind and to examine all the aspects of the allegations leveled by the complainant, while passing order under section 173 Cr.P.C. and he should not dispose of the summery in mechanical manners.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances referred supra, I am of the view that petitioner has failed to place any legal substance for interference with impugned order which is just and proper and does not call for any interference, hence same is maintained. Consequently, instant petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternate remedy by filing direct complaint before the concerned Court, if he is advised so.
JUDGE
Imran