ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Misc. Application No.S- 268 of 2019
Date Order with Signature of
Hon’ble Judge
For non prosecution.
13-05-2019
Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabbani, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy P.G
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J; The facts in brief necessary for disposal of
instant application u/s 561-A Cr.PC are that the proposed accused by committing
trespass in her house have beaten her son and nephews and then went away by
threatening her to be killed in case the land in their possession is not
transferred in their name. she allegedly approached the police for recording
her FIR, it was not recorded and then she by way of an application u/s 22-A
& B Cr.PC sought for direction against SHO PS Salehpat to record her FIR,
it was dismissed by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of
Peace Sukkur by way of order dated 26.3.2019 which is impugned by the applicant
before this court by way of instant application u/s 561-A Cr.PC.
2. It is
contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned II-Additional
Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice Peace Sukkur was not justified in dismissing
the application of the applicant as allegation leveled by the applicant
constituted cognizable offence. By contending so he sought for direction
against SHO PS Salehpat to record statement of the applicant u/s 154 Cr.PC.
3. Learned DPG
for the State by supporting the impugned order has sought for dismissal of
instant application by contending that no incident as alleged by the applicant
has taken place and the applicant in order to satisfy her dispute with the
proposed accused is intending to involve them in false criminal case,
malafidely.
4. I have
considered the above arguments and perused the record.
5. Admittedly
the parties are disputed over landed property, it is the simple case of
maltreatment and no injury as per learned DPG is constituting a cognizable
offence. In that situation, learned II-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio
Justice of Peace was right to dismiss the application u/s 22-A & B Cr.PC by
way of impugned order which is not calling for any interference by this court.
6. In case of Rai
Ashraf and others Vs. Muhammad Saleem
Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC-691),
it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that;
“ Validity---Dispute between parties was over such
house---Applicant had secured restrain, order against respondent from Civil
Court, and for its violation, he had a remedy before Civil Court---Applicant
had an alternate remedy to file private complaints against
respondent---Applicant had filed another application before Ex-officio Justice
of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge to restrain public functionaries from taking
action against under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder---Application for registration of FIR had been
filed with malafide intention.”
7. In view of the above, the instant
Criminal Miscellaneous Application fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Judge
Rafi /P.A