ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Misc.Appln.No.S-474 of 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_______________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.7985/2021.

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.7986/2021.

04. For hearing of main case.

23.12.2021

                        Mr. Rashid Ali Ujjan, Advocate for the applicant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        It is alleged by the applicant that the proposed accused by committing trespass in his house have taken away his valuable belongings and cash. On refusal of the police to record his FIR, he by making an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC sought for direction against the police to record his FIR for the above said incident; it was dismissed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, vide order dated 10.11.2021, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Misc.Application under section 561-A Cr.PC.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has dismissed the application of the applicant by way of impugned order without lawful justification; therefore, same is liable to be set aside by this Court with direction to police to record statement of the applicant for the purpose of FIR.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        As per impugned order, the police in its’ report has denied the occurrence of the alleged incident by inter-alia stating therein that the applicant and his brother are already facing trial for offence under Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and they are intending to implicate the proposed accused being their neighbor in a false case only for the reason that they are preventing their unlawful activities. In these circumstances, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was right in his refusal to issue direction to police to record statement of the applicant for the purpose of FIR. 

            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 wrong even otherwise in impugned order is pointed out, which may justify making interference with it, by this Court, by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application, it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

                        However, the applicant may exhaust his remedy under section 200 Cr.PC, if so is advised to him.

                                         JUDGE