ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.S- 90 of 2018

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of main case

15.04.2019

Mr. Saeed Ahmed A. Panhwar Advocate for the Applicant

Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Shahani Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar Additional PG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; The applicant by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A Cr.PC, has impugned order dated 20.06.2014, passed by learned 2^nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Rohri, whereby he has approved the police report for disposal of FIR Crime No.08/2014 under Sections 452, 395, 436, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 PPC of Police Station Salehpat, under “C” class.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application are that the accused allegedly after having trespassed into the house of applicant by causing injuries to his wife and daughter take away his goats and other belongings, for that he lodged FIR of the incident with Police Station, Salehpat.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned trial Magistrate has passed the impugned order in hasty manner and without assigning the cogent reasons. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the same with direction to learned trial Magistrate to take cognizance of the incident. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Syed Qadir Bux Shah alias Hajan Shah and another vs. SHO Bhaan Police Station and two others (2105 P. Cr. L J 856).

4. Learned Additional PG for the State and learned counsel for the accused have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl. Misc. Application by contending that the impugned order is well reasoned. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the case of Syeda Afshan vs. Syed Farrukh Ali and others (PLD 2003 Sindh 423).

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of seven days, it has not been explained plausibly by the applicant, it reflects consultation. The mashirnama of place of incident is not supporting the case of the applicant. Nothing has been brought on record which may prove the ownership of the applicant over the property which allegedly was taken away by the accused. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to approve the police report for disposal of the FIR of the applicant under ‘C’ class by making the following observation;

“It appears that investigating officer visited the site on 06.2.2014 and prepared such mashirnama of site inspection it shows that neither the houses of the complainant and his son were set at fire nor lock of the box was broken and complainant failed to produce any proof to the investigating officer with regard to the alleged incident during site inspection, and prosecution witnesses namely Rabban, Mst. Rabil, Mst. Noor Khatoon have also not fully supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating officer has also recorded statements of different persons from the locality namely Bachoo, Belo, Muhammad Panjoo, Khamiso, Achar, Budho and Hoat, they all have stated that no any such incident took place and accused have been falsely implicated due to previous dispute of the ownership of trees between the parties.”

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case police report for disposal of the FIR under ‘C’ class was not accepted by learned trial Magistrate and such order was impugned by the applicant. In the instant matter police report for disposal of the FIR of the applicant under ‘C’ class is approved by the learned trial Magistrate.

8. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that no case for making interference with the impugned order is made out. Consequently, instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, is dismissed.

Judge

ARBROHI