ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S-98 of 2020

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

 

For hearing of main case.

09.10.2020

 

Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Ali Nawaz Depar, Advocate for private respondent

Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State.        

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

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is inter-alia alleged by the private respondent that the applicant and others have robbed him of rupees five thousand. By making such allegation, he sought for direction from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, against SHO, P.S Waleed, for recording his statement for the purpose of FIR, it was issued accordingly by him vide his order dated 22.04.2020, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court.          

2.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence as alleged by the private respondent has taken place and the private respondent is intending to involve the applicant in a false case in order to satisfy his family dispute with him being close relative. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

3.                    Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Misc.Application by contending that the narration made by the private respondent constitutes a cognizable offence. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Liaquat Younis and 4 others Vs. The State (2020 PCr.LJ Note-115) and Tariq Shafi and another Vs. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 5 others (2020 PCr.LJ Note 151).

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

5.                    The applicant and private respondent are said to be relative inter-se. The applicant being police official on the date of incident it is said was detailed in his duty with Army personnel at Larkana. The report of SHO, P.S Waleed and Incharge District Complaint and Redressal Cell, Larkana, negates the commission of the incident, as alleged by the private respondent, those reports have not been considered in its true perspective by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, without assigning any reason for doing so. In that situation, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the private respondent is intending to implicate the applicant in false case in order to satisfy his family dispute, could not be lost sight of.

6.                    In case of Rai Ashraf & others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti & others (PLD 2010 SC-691), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.                    In view of above, the impugned order is set aside. The private respondent however may exhaust his remedy under section 200 Cr.PC, if so is advised.

8.                    The instant Crl.Misc.Application is disposed of accordingly.

 

                                                                                           J U D G E