ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-446 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.7729/2021 (U/A)

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.7730/2021 (E/A).

04. For hearing of main case.

13.12.2021

                        Mr. Abdul Hameed Mangi, Advocate for the applicant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

            It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the proposed accused being police officials on account of his refusal to pay them bribe have involved him in a false case of recovery of an unlicensed weapon, after snatching his licensed pistol and other belongings; therefore, the applicant sought for direction for recording his FIR against them by making such application, which was disposed of by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by way of impugned order, such order being illegal is liable to be set aside with direction to police to record statement of the applicant for the purpose of FIR.

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.                      

                        The alleged incident, if any, has taken place at least one year ago. The applicant was found to be in possession of an unlicensed weapon, for that he was booked accordingly by the proposed accused. In that situation, seeking direction for registration of his FIR against the police personnel is appearing to be an attempt on the part of applicant to get some favour from them at trial, which constitute an act of malafide.

            In case of Rai Ashraf and others vs Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC-691) it has been held by Hon’ble apex Court that;

“The learned High Court had erred in law to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent No.1 without realizing that the respondent No.1 had filed application before the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace to restrain the public functionaries not to take action against him in accordance with the LDA Act 1975, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, therefore, respondent No.1 had filed petition with mala fide intention and this aspect was not considered by the learned High Court in its true perspective.”

                        No illegality even otherwise is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, which may justify making interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application under section 561-A Cr.PC,   it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

JUDGE