ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr.M. A. No. S-1042 of 2017

Dญญญญญญญญญญญate                               Order with signature of Judge

 

                                                          For katcha peshi hearing.         

 

 

26.03.2018

 

 

                   Mr.Gul Feroz, Kalwar, Advocate for the applicant

Mr.Sundar Khan Chachar, Advocate for proposed accused.

Mr.Abdul Rehman Kolachi DPG for the State

 

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

 

                  As per applicant, when he and his witnesses were at their lands there came the proposed accused, who robbed them of their belongings, tied them with the standing trees, take away their tractor with a threat to be killed in case they will not had over the possession of land to them, he then reported the incident to police but his FIR was not recorded, he then approached learned justice of peace for issuance of direction against police to record his FIR by way of filing an application u/s 22-A & B Cr.P C, it was dismissed, such dismissal of his application the applicant has impugned before this court.  

                  It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the police is under lawful obligation to record the FIR on disclosure of cognizable offence. By contending so, he sought for direction against police to record FIR of the applicant.

                  Learned counsel for the proposed accused has opposed to issuance of direction against the police to record FIR of the applicant as he according to him is intending to settle his dispute with the proposed accused over landed property. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Rai Ashraf Vs Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others, which is reported at PLD 2010 S.C-691.

                  Learned DPG has supported the impugned order.

                  The tractor was secured by the police u/s 550 Cr.P C, which belies the applicant that it was taken away by the proposed accused during course of incident. The applicant and the proposed accused admittedly are disputed over possession of landed property. In that situation it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for proposed accused that the applicant is intending to settle his dispute with the proposed accused over landed property by involving them in a criminal case. In these premises learned justice of peace was right to refuse issuance of direction for recording FIR of the applicant as it was based on malafide, by making reference to case of Rai Ashraf which is relied upon by learned counsel for the proposed accused.

                  In view of above, the instant application is dismissed.

 

 

                                                          J U D G E