ORDER-SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Misc. Application No. S-359 of 2017.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
FOR HEARING OF CASE.
09.04.2018.
Mr. Rafique Ahmed K. Abro Advocate for the applicant.
Miss Shamim Akhter State Counsel.
----------------
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO-J: Through this application, the applicant has called in question impugned order dated 17.10.2017, whereby the application filed by him under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.PC for registration of F.I.R against the proposed accused was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional sessions Jude, Kandhkot and seeking following relief(s) for its disposal .
I) To direct the respondent No.1 to record the statement of applicant and at his verbatim and if from his statement a cognizable offence is made out, the same may be incorporated under section 154, Cr.PC book.
Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the applicant under section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C for registration of F.I.R for an incident which took place on 4.10.2017 at about 4:00 PM alleging therein that accused namely Ali Khan Behlkani, Abdul Hammed Panhwer DSP, Bakhsapur, SHO, Jamal Shah and 40/50 police constable arrived on police mobile illegally and unlawfully arrested the applicant forcibly entered into the house of the applicant, insulted women folks and also damaged house hold articles, robbed motorcycle and arrested Mukhtiar and for his release police demanded illegal gratification and subsequently applicant was involved in the case under section 216 PPC. Being aggrieved filed application before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order is not in accordance with law as the provisions of section 154 Cr.PC are very clear which do not leave any room for the incahrge police station to refuse registration of FIR and he is bound to record the statement of applicant in case it discloses commission of a cognizable offence he will incorporate the under section 154 Cr.PC book kept at Police station. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Muhammad Khan and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chaman (2017 P.Cr. L J 1155) and State through Deputy Advocate General Gilgit- Baltistan V. Ghafoor and 6 others (2017 P.Cr. L J 1477).
Learned State Counsel contended that the applicant and his family members having a criminal history and produced list of cases pending against them. She submitted that infact police arrested son of the applicant namely Mukhtair in Crime No.19 of 2017 and such application was filed by the applicant being Cr. Misc. A No.119 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot and vide order dated 19.10.2017 learned Sessions Judge, disposed of the application on the ground that Raid Commissioner has submitted his report that the son of the applicant namely Mukhtiar Ahmed has been arrested in crime No.19 of 2017 and no illegal detention has been made by the police official as such no offence has been committed by the proposed accused. She further submitted that alternate remedy is available for the applicant to file a Direct compliant before the competent court of law and he relied upon case law report as Rai Ashraf and others V. the Muhammad Saleem Bhatti (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 691) and Imtiaz Ahmed Cheema, SHO V. SHO Police Station Daharki, Ghotki and 2 others (2010 YLR 189).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record so also the statement submitted by the SHO, Police Station RD-109, which shows that the applicant and his sons are involved in following cases:
|
S.# |
Name |
Crime No. |
Police Station |
|
1 |
Beshak Khan @ Bux Khan son of Sadho Khan Jafferi (Petitioner) |
1/- 94/2017 U/s. 216-A, 2/-16/2015 U/s. 324,114,149 PPC 3/- 62/2005 U/s.436-427 PPC |
Jamal -Do- Gh Sarwar Sarki |
|
2 |
Mukhtiar son of Bux Jaferi (Son of Petitioner) |
1. 16/2015 u/s.324,114,149. 2. 29/2017, U/s.324, 353 PPC 3. 64/2017 u/s.324,353 PPC |
Jamal Jamal Gh Sarwar Sarki |
|
3 |
Liaquat son of Bux Jafferi (Son of Petitioner) |
1.17/2015 u/s.324,353 2. 19/2017 u/s.324,353. 3. 92/2017 u/s.324,353,PPC 6/7 Ata |
Jamal Jamal Jamal |
|
4 |
Murad Ali son of Bux Jafferi (Son of petitioner) |
1. 62/2005 u/s. 436-427 |
Gh Sarwar Sarki |
|
5 |
Noor Hassan son of Bux Jafferi (Son of petitioner) |
1.62/2015 u/s.324,114,149 PPC 2. 16/2015 u/s.324,114,149 PPC |
Gh Sarwar Sarki Jamal |
|
6 |
Zafarullah son of Murad Ali Jaferi (Grand son of petitioner) |
1.16/2015, u/s.324-148 2.51/2017 u/s.23(1) Arms Act. 3.58/2017 u/s.324-353 |
Jamal Jamal Gh Sarwar Sarki -do- |
As per report submitted by the concerned SHO, that the petitioner belongs to a criminal family and many cases are registered against them as well as his relatives, the instant application has been filed in order to pressurize the local police to avoid conduct raid against them as they all are required in different cases. He has also submitted in his report that neither he entered into the house of applicant nor took away any article as alleged by the applicant in this application. However, he submitted that son of applicant namely Liaquat is a habitual criminal and he has robbed government weapons from police of Police Station Jamal and such F.I.R bearing No.92 of 2017 under section 395,324,353 PPC and 6/7 ATA was registered at Police Station Jamal. He further submitted that applications have been filed only to pressurize the police official.
In the present matter it is an admitted position that the applicant and his sons were involve in various criminal cases against whom the aforementioned FIRs are registered and in pursuance of that case son of the applicant namely Mukhtiar Ali was arrested and sent up for the trial by the proposed accused. The persistence of the applicant to get registered F.I.R against the police officials without having recourse to a private compliant depicts that he is only interested to see a criminal case registered against the proposed accused through an F.I.R. In wake of the fact that the applicant is seeking direction of the registration of the FIR against the police officials, it would not be out of place to state here that the most efficacious remedy for him would be to file a private complaint against them as this court even after registration of a criminal case cannot control and regulate the investigation.
In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot. Resultantly the application is dismissed. The applicant however, may approach the appropriate forum through private complaint for redressal of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law.
J U D G E
S.Ashfaq.