ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln.No.37 of 2017

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection as flag “A”

2. For hearing of main case.

04.01.2019

                        Mr.Khadim Hussain Khoso, Advocate for the applicant.                                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

01.                  Differed.

02. The applicant by way of instant Crl.Revision.Application has impugned order dated 19.06.2017, passed by learned Special Judge           Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby the direct complaint filed by the  applicant has been dismissed u/s 203 Cr.PC, the operative part whereof reads as under;

“From the perusal of material it appears that there is enmity in between the private parties therefore complainant side had registered the FIR against the accused party and complainant further added that respondents had called for enquiry in case Crime No.33/2012 but record shows that the alleged offence took place in year 2012 and according to the complainant enquiry was held in year 2016 if the above contention of complainant would be presumed to be correct then as to why the complainant remained silent and not knocked the door of competent forum as contended in this complaint. Further allegations of complainant are that accused Abdul Ghaffar Rajput is absconder and respondents had not arrested him the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out section 59 Cr.PC during arguments that private person may apprehend the absconder accused and shall make over any person so arrested to police officer then as to why complainant not approach to the local police and remained silent which creates doubt on the case of complainant. Apart from above the complaint alleged that respondents had obtained the bribe from the accused in their presence which is not believable as such the respondent is serving as SP, CTD Sukkur how respondent openly demanded and accepted the bribe in presence of complainant party. He complainant further alleged that enquiry conducted by the respondents they sent the report against him which requires consideration. It is one of the reason of filing the instant complaint against the respondents. Perusal of complaint further shows that there is criminal litigation in between the complainant and Abdul Ghaffar Rajput but complainant suppressed the facts and not disclosed in his statement recorded during preliminary enquiry. It is well settled principle law that person approach the Court for relief must approach with clean hands. The story as stated seems to be concocted therefore no prima facie case is made out against the respondents hence the instant complaint is dismissed u/s 203 Cr.PC”. 

                        The facts necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision application are that as per applicant the proposed accused being police officials demanded from him illegal gratification for fair investigation of his case and on account of his refusal to meet their demand, they obtained the bribe from his opponents in his presence and then disposed of his case by way of dishonest investigation by misusing their official authority. It was in these circumstances, the applicant filed a direct complaint for action against the proposed accused. It was dismissed by learned trial Court, as stated above.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has dismissed the direct complaint of the applicant without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for reversal of impugned order with direction to learned trial Court to take cognizance of the incident.

                         The learned D.P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application by supporting the impugned order, which according to him is well reasoned.    

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        No bribe was paid by the applicant to the proposed accused.  None indeed would accept the bribe publicly that too in presence of the person against whom the action is going to be taken. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the bribe was actually accepted by the proposed accused from the opponents of the applicant then he ought to have sought for transfer of investigation of his case timely. It was not done by the applicant for no obvious reason. The circumstances indicate that the applicant in order to satisfy his grudge on account of disposal of his case against his wishes was intending to involve the proposed accused in a false case under the pretext of acceptance of bribe and misusing of their official authority. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to dismiss the direct complaint of the applicant under section 203 Cr.PC by way of impugned order, which is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of filing instant criminal revision application, it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E