ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-105 of 2020

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of main case.

17-08-2020

 

Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the applicant

Proposed accused in person

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, A.P.G for the State.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application has impugned an order dated 09.05.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Ratodero, whereby his application under section 22-A& B Cr.PC for issuance of directions against SHO, P.S, Ratodero to record his FIR against the proposed accused, for allegedly maltreating the applicant and others, on account of their failure to pay them bribe, was dismissed.

2.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that a cognizable offence was committed by the proposed accused therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Ratodero, was not justified to have dismissed the application of the applicant for recording his FIR by way of impugned order, which is liable to be set aside with direction to SHO, P.S Ratodero to record statement of the applicant for purpose of FIR of the incident. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Bashir Vs. SHO, Okara Cantt and others (PLD 2007 SC-539).

3.                    Learned A.P.G for the State who is assisted by the proposed accused in person has sought for dismissal of the instant application by contending that the applicant and others on being prevented from making violation of proclamation issued under section 188 PPC have assaulted the police party and on arrest from one of them has also been secured robbed police rifle and for that an FIR Crime No.43/2020 has been registered against them at police station Ratodero and they in order to defeat legal action are intending to get police officials involved in false case malafidely.

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

5.                    Admittedly, FIR Crime No.43/2020 has been registered against the applicant and others with P.S Ratodero, for violation of proclamation issued under section 188 PPC and for assaulting the police personnels, from performing their lawful duty as public servants and on arrest from one of them has also been secured a robbed police rifle. In that situation, the contention of learned A.P.G for the State that the malafide on the part of applicant to involve the proposed accused in a false case could not be overlooked. In these circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Ratodero, was right to refuse recording FIR of the applicant by way of impugned order, with valid reasons.

6.                    In case of Rai Ashraf & others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti & others (PLD 2010 SC-691), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside the order whereby the direction for recording of FIR was issued by making an observation 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 him under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder---Application for registration of FIR had been filed with malafide intention”.

7.                    The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the applicant was required to take oath by police on “Holy Quran” about guilt of the accused before recording his FIR, which was against normal procedure. In the instant case, the police officials have alleged malafide against the applicant to introduce them in false case.

8.                    In view of above, instant Crl.Misc.Application under section 561-A Cr.PC fails and is dismissed accordingly.  

                                                                                             J U D G E