C.P.No.D-2008 of 2015
For orders on CMA-8986/2015
10.09.2015
Mr. Muzaffar Ali
Shaikh Advocate for petitioner.
...............
1. Urgency
granted.
Through
instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30.01.2015 passed
by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace,
Khairpur, in Cr. Misc. Application No.112/2015, whereby the application filed
under Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against proposed
accused persons, has been dismissed and the learned counsel for the petitioner
has read out the impugned order passed in the instant case and submits that
directions may be issued to the concerned SHO to register the case against the
accused persons.
We have heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner, perused the record and the impugned order passed by the learned
Justice of Peace. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant finding of
the impugned order, which reads as follows:
“From the perusal of record, it reveals that neither applicant mentioned the survey numbers
of the land where incident allegedly has taken place nor he witnessed the
incident nor disclosed the name of any person seems to be present at the spot
to see the alleged incident. The record further reveals that record produced by
the applicant is old one and same is also not favourable to the case of
applicant as well as report of concerned SHO is against the applicant. Record
further reveals that the proposed accused are owners of the land and the
applicant is falsely claiming to be the owner of the same and such cases had
been decided in favour of the proposed accused by the Court of law. Therefore,
it can be presumed that the applicant make false application against the
proposed accused in order to put pressure upon them to usurp their landed
property. Therefore, the applicant has not come with clean hands. In this
respect, the reliance may be placed from the case of Abdul Latif v. Mst. Hakim
Zadi and two others (2013 P.Cr.L.J 813), wherein Honourable High Court has
held, as under:
“The provisions of section 22-A, Cr.P.C have been misused
in a number of cases. The wisdom of legislature was not that any person who is
discharging of duties takes an action against the accused would be subjected to
harassment by invoking provisions of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The Courts in
mechanical manner should not allow application under Section 22-A and B and
should apply its mind as to whether the applicant has approached the Court with
clean hands or it is tainted with malice.”
Therefore, in view of the above
discussion and case law referred hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the
applicant has not come with clean hands and he has concealed the above facts;
hence, in view of above stated position, I find no merit in the application,
therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.”
From perusal of findings as recorded
by the learned Justice of Peace we could not find any error in the impugned
order and when confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out
any error in the impugned order or refer to any material which may connect the
accused persons with the alleged crime, the learned counsel for the petitioner
could not respond to the query of the Court and has candidly stated that the
petitioner will not press instant petition and may seek alternate remedy by way
of filing direct complaint, in accordance with law. Accordingly, instant
petition is dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
N.M.