C.P.No.D-3089 of 2015

1. For orders on CMA-8693/2015

2. For orders on CMA-8694/2015

3. For Katcha Peshi

4. For orders on CMA-8695/2015

27.08.2015

Mr. Iftikhar Ali Arain for the petitioner.

...............

Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 25.08.2015 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Ghotki, in Cr.Misc.A. No.1341/2015 on the ground that petitioner Abdul Majeed s/o Muhammad Shareef Arain, presently posted as SHO, PS, Raunti, is being falsely implicated by the complainant in a criminal case on false allegations whereas according to learned counsel against complainant party there are criminal cases registered at various police stations, as per criminal record given by SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar at page 31 of the instant petition. Per learned counsel the police officials are being dragged in false proceedings by the criminals or their relatives to frustrate the legal action required to be taken against criminals by implicating them in false cases, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, learned Deputy Prosecutor General is present in Court, waives notice and supports the impugned order.

It will be advantageous to reproduce the order passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Ghotki, which reads as follows:

“By this order I intend to dispose of the application u/s 22-A (6) (i), Cr.P.C, filed by applicant through his counsel, for seeking directions to SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar, for lodging of FIR.

It is alleged by applicant in his application that on 28.06.2015 at about 06-00 a.m. proposed accused and four other unknown police constables entered in his house and forcibly taken away his one buffalo and also arrested him, then they brought him and buffalo at PS. Applicant further stated that after taking Rs.5000/- proposed accused released applicant but his buffalo has not been returned. Further applicant stated that he approached to SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar, for lodging of FIR, but he refused to do so, hence he filed this application.

Report called from concerned SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar, who denied the occurrence as alleged in this application.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned ADPP for State and also perused record.

As per law SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar is bound to record the statement of complainant/applicant and do according to law, if cognizable offence is made out, therefore, SHO, PS, Khanpur Mahar is hereby directed to record the statement of complainant, if from his statement cognizable offence is made out, his FIR be registered OR to act in accordance with law. If FIR of applicant, during investigation declared as false, then proceeding u/s 182 PPC be initiated against applicant.”

This Court under similar circumstances has disposed of some petitions including C.P. No.D-2935/2015 vide order dated 19.08.2015 in the following manner:

“From perusal of aforesaid order it appears that the learned Judge being cognizant of the authority available under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C, has passed appropriate order providing sufficient protection to the accused nominated therein hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error which may require any interference by this Court under the constitutional jurisdiction. However, in case of any adverse action by the police at the instance of complainant or violation of any legal procedure during investigation, petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

While confronted with such position, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition, however, submits that the concerned police may be directed to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law and to ensure that in case of false implication of the petitioner at the instant of complainant, appropriate action may be taken against the complainant. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as not pressed.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner while confronted with the disposal of a similar petition in the aforesaid terms, does not oppose disposal of the instant petition in the similar terms. Accordingly, instant petition is being disposed of by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.08.2015, passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-2935/2015 as referred hereinabove.

JUDGE

N.M.