IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Revision Application No.S-91 of 2021

Applicant: Shah Muhammad Chachar, through Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Soomro, Advocate.

Respondents No.1 to 7: Nemo.

State: Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG

Date of hearing: 22.11.2021.

Date of decision: 22.11.2021.

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: This Cr. Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2021, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Aqil, in Direct Complaint No.01/2021 (impugned herein), filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C whereby such complaint was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the very outset, submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind; besides against the facts of the case; that learned trial judge has also not considered the depositions of PWs and title documents of applicant. He lastly submits that prima facie case for taking cognizance is made out but such complaint was dismissed by learned trial Court.

3. Learned DPG has contended that a well-reasoned order has been passed by learned trial Court wherein each and every point of law has been elaborated therefore he supports the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of instant Criminal Revision Application.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as learned DPG for the State and have gone through the material available on record.

5. Perusal of impugned order dated 04.08.2021 reflects that it is based upon cogent and convincing reasons, which, for the sake of convenience, are reproduced as under:-

“06. No doubt civil litigation is already sub-judiced between the parties over the title and possession in the court of law. Since complainant has diverted civil dispute in to criminal litigation, which is abuse of law.

07. Apart from the above, I find material contradictions in the statement of complainant and his witness on material points, role of each accused at the place of incident, consumption of time and source of shifting of huge sugarcane crop. The story itself appears to be self engineered and does not appeal to a prudent mind.

08. It may be add here that intention of legislature under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C is that while providing remedy to file private complaint is also to save the public against frivolous or vexatious complaints filed against them in the criminal Court and Courts must not lightly accept written complaint until complainant is satisfied that prima facie case is made out against the accused”.

In view of the above reasoning given in the impugned order reflects that the same was passed with care and caution and is well-reasoned. No any illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order. Resultantly, this criminal revision application is dismissed.

Judge

Faisal Mumtaz/PS