IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Constt:
Petition No.D- 3460
of 2015
DATE ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
1- For
orders on CMA.No.9993/2015 (U/A)
2- For
orders on CMA.No.9735/2015 (Ex.A)
3- For
KatchaPeshi.
01st. October, 2015.
Mr.
NusratHussainMemon, Advocate for petitioner.
Through instant
petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 05.9.2015 passed by learned 1st.
Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Ghotki
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1726 of 2015, whereby the application
filed by petitioner U/s 22-A (6) (I), Cr.P.C for
lodging of an F.I.R against proposed
accused persons has been dismissed.
Learned Counsel for
petitioner submits that since a cognizable offence was made out, therefore, it
was duty of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to direct the S.H.O to
record statement of petitioner and lodge F.I.R against the proposed accused
persons.
We have heard learned
Counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by learned 1st.
Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Ghotki in the aforesaid case. From tentative
perusal of the contents of application U/s 22-A (6)(I),
Cr.P.C, so also report of the concerned S.H.O, it
appears that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the proposed
accused over the rotation of water and they are neighbourers
to each other. The learned Justice of Peace, in view of the material available
on record and on examining the report submitted by the concerned S.H.O did not
find the story as narrated by petitioner a confidence inspiring. It appears
that allegations have been levelled against the
proposed accused in the absence of any material on record. The petitioner would
have availed an alternate remedy by filing direct complaint before the
concerned Magistrate, instead of insisting of registration of an F.I.R. We do
not find any error in the impugned order, whereas, the learned Justice of Peace
has exercised the jurisdiction reasonably. Accordingly instant petition is
dismissed in limine along with listed applications.
However, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek proper remedy in accordance
with law for redressal of his grievances, if so
advised.
JUDGE
JUDGE
A.R.BROHI