ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Crl.Misc.Appln.No. S- 131 of 2018.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

27.07.2018.

1. For orders on office objection “A”.

2. For hearing of case.

3. For hearing of M.A.No.1816/2018.

Mr. Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate for applicants.

          Mr. Abid Abdul Qadir Abro, Advocate for respondent  No.1.

Mr. Muhammad Qasim Solangi, Advocate for respondent No.6 & 7.

          Mr. Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G.

        ~~~~~~~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief leading to passing of instant order are that the respondent No.1 by way of an application u/s.22-A(6)(iii) Cr.PC mainly sought for protection for his family and direction against the police to recover the abductee of FIR Crime No.16/2018, under section 365-B, 364, 506/2, 337-H(ii) PPC of P.S Hyderi, and to submit challan whereof before the Court having jurisdiction, On 25.05.2018, the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, while making disposal of the above said application directed S.S.P, Larkana, for taking action against the applicants with the following observation;

“In view of above, the report be sent to S.S.P Larkana for taking action against the respondent No.1 and 2 with further directions to lodge FIR against them, as they have failed to perform their duties and their act shows that they are supporting accused person”.    

                   The applicant being aggrieved of observation so recorded against them by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

                   It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the very case has already been disposed of by learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by way of order dated 13.06.2018; there was no fault on the part of applicants as they furnished interim report of the case before District Public Prosecutor Larkana within prescribed time and learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, has passed the impugned order against the applicants without any lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the same.

                   The learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the private respondents have not supported the impugned order.

                   I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                   Proviso (1) to Section 173 Cr.PC, provides that; if the investigation of the case is not completed within fourteen days from the date of recording of first information report under section 154 Cr.PC, the officer incharge of the police station shall within three days of the expiration of such period forward to the Magistrate through the Public Prosecutor an interim report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government stating therein the result of investigation made until then. In the instant matter, the interim report as per the applicants was furnished by them before District Public Prosecutor Larkana and he failed to forward the same to the Magistrate having jurisdiction within prescribed time. If it is so, then omission, if any, was on the part of District Public Prosecutor Larkana, and for his omission, the applicants could not be held responsible. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the applicants have failed to submit interim report before the Magistrate having jurisdiction which constitute an offence punishable u/s.166 and/or 166 (2) PPC against them, even then it was not enough for learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace Larkana to have ordered for recording of FIR against the applicants simply for the reason that as per Column No.3 to Chapter-IX of Schedule-II to Criminal Procedure Code, it was non-cognizable offence. The FIR of the offence which is non-cognizable in its nature under no circumstances could be ordered to be recorded. In these circumstances, the learned A.P.G and learned counsel for the private respondents have rightly did not support the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order of learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, could not be sustained, it is set aside.

                    The instant Crl.Misc.Applicatoin is disposed of accordingly.      

                        J U D G E

-