IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

Constt: Petition No.D- 247 of 2016

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1- For orders on M.A.No.669/2016 (U/A)

2- For orders on M.A.No.670/2016 (Ex.A)

3- For Katcha Peshi.

27^th. January, 2016.

Mr. Ali Asghar Panhiyar, Advocate for petitioner.

Through instant petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 04.1.2016 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2562 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner U/s 22-A(6)(1), Cr.P.C seeking registration of F.I.R against proposed accused persons, has been dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since a cognizable offence was reported, therefore, learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ Sessions Judge, Ghotki was required to issue directions to the concerned S.H.O to lodge the F.I.R against the proposed accused persons.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of application U/s 22-A(6)(1), Cr.P.C so also impugned order dated 04.1.2016, which reflects that no material evidence was produced by the petitioner to support the allegations as contained in the application, whereas, learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki while applying its judicious mind to the facts of the case after calling report from the concerned S.H.O formed an opinion that the allegations as contained in the application U/s 22-A(6)(1), Cr.P.C are without any substance and no cognizable offence has been reported by the petitioner, whereas, it has been further observed that it is the counter-blast case of F.I.R No. 22/2015 which is registered by one of the proposed accused against the petitioner. Furthermore, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Ghotki while exercising its jurisdiction U/s 22-A(6)(1), Cr.P.C is required to apply its judicious mind to the allegations and the offence reported and cannot issue directions for registration of F.I.R in a mechanical manner in each and every case, and in the instant case such exercise of authority does not suffer from any error or illegality, hence impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, instant petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine along with listed applications. However, the petitioner may be at liberty to seek any further remedy for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.

.JUDGE

JUDGE

A.R.BROHI