IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Misc.
Application No.S-683 of 2020.
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.
2. For hearing of main case.
O R D E R.
25.02.2022.
ApplicantShahzadoDreho in person.
M/s Ali GulAbbassi and Aamir Mustafa
Kamario Advocates for proposed accused.
Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar
Deputy Prosecutor General along with ASI DhaniBux S.S.P office Sukklur, ASI
GhulamShabbir Shah of PS Site Sukkur and ASI Rehmatullah of PS ‘C’ Section
Sukkur.
-.-.-.-
AMJAD ALI
SAHITO, J: Through instant
application, applicant ShahzadoDrehohas impugned an order dated 21.10.2020,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Justice of Peace, Sukkur, whereby his application u/s22-A &
22-B Cr.PC was dismissed.
2.
Applicant who is an advocate by profession
alleged that on 27.12.2019 he along with his son namely Mehmood, MunawarAlam
Khan Advocate High Court and other
citizens of civil society raised protest against proposed accused No.1 Qurban
Ali Malano/Provincial Member Public Safety Commission, at Press Club Sukkur
where journalists, press photographers and other public were available, it was
12.30 noon, proposed accused MujeebMalano who was empty handed, RahibMalano
having lathi along 15/20 unidentified persons with lathies came there and on
the conspiracy of proposed accused No.1 Qurban Ali Malano, all accused attacked
upon applicant party with lathieswith the result applicant, his son Mehmood, MunawarAlam
Khan Advocate and Press Photographer Syed Gulzar Shah became injured while
accused MujeebMalanotorne the pocket of jacket of applicant and has taken away
cash of Rs.20,000/- and other valuable
articles, mobile phone and CNIC of applicant with them, for which he appeared
at Police Station but his FIR was not registered by the police. Resulting
whereof, his application under section 22-A |B Cr.P.C was dismissed by learned
II-Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Sukkur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contended
that learned Justice of Peace has erred in law and exercised discretion in
favour of the proposed accused; that the contents of application filed by
applciant under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C prima faice discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence and as per provision of Section 154 Cr.P.C,
the Officer Incharge of Police Station is bound by law to register the FIR and
he has no power to refuse. Lastly prayed that the application of the applicant
be allowed and respondent No.4 be directed to register FIR of the applicant at
per his verbatim.
4.
On the other hand, learned Advocate for proposed
accused and learned D.P.G supported the impugned order by submitting that
actually no incident has taken place and the applicant wants to implicate respondent
No.1who is Member of Sindh Bar Counseldue to dispute in between the legal
fraternity/Members of Bar Council, proposed accused No.2 MujeebMalano is son of
proposed accused No.2 while proposed accused No.3 is also near relative of
proposed accused Nos. 2 and 3 and an
Advocate and Member of Sindh Bar Council. He next submits that applicant ShahzadoDreho
Advocate was declared to have habitual of moving false and frivolous
applications made against different persons and such observation was given by
this Court in C.P No.D-820 of 2006 as well as by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Petition No.40-K of 2003 whereby cost imposed by the High Court was reduced
by Hon’ble Supreme Court on sympathetic grounds, maintaining order of this
Court, hence the instant Criminal Misc. Application is misconceived and the
same may also be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant,
learned counsel for the proposed accused, learned D.P.G appearing for the State
and perused the record.
6.
From the perusal of available record it reveals
that the Press clipping dated 28.12.2019 of roznamcha Sindh Sukkur annexed with
memo of application under section 22-A B Cr.P.C for lodging of FIR discloses
that some unknown persons have attacked upon applicant and others. The medical
certificate dated 18.12.2019 shows abrasion marks on the body of applicant.
Moreover,the conduct of applicant as pointed out by learned counsel for
proposed accused appears to be habitual to move false and frivolous
applications made against different persons, consequently applicant was imposed
cost of Rs. 25,000/- by this Court which was partly allowed to the extent
that the cost was reduced from Rs. 25000/- to Rs. 5000/- with directions
to deposit the same by the applicant within a month and the observation was given that “ although the matter was settled by High
Court, yet the (petitioner) continued to file applications one again another to
gain cheap popularity.”
7.
In the case of Habibullah v. Political
Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCMR-951), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Pakistan has observed that filing of private complaint could provide an
equal adequate relief to the petitioner because he could lead the entire
evidence himself before the trial Court and his grievance could adequately be
redressed while considering the fact that respondent/SHO, who in the report and
para-wise comments has mentioned adverse to the petitioner’s case, therefore,
it could not be expected from the concerned SHO that he would carry independent
and impartial investigation in the case. It may be stated that under the
provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan it was not obligatory for the High Court to issue writ in each case irrespective
of the facts and whichcould call for exercise of judicial restraint in
turning down the request for registration of FIR in view of the conduct of the
party besides considering that adequate remedy in the form of private complaint
being available to the petitioner.
8.
In view of the above circumstances and the
dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case, cited
supra, I am of the humble view that it would be appropriate for the applicant
to exhaust such remedy by filing a direct complaint before the Court having
jurisdiction, where he could lead the entire evidence himself and his grievance
could adequately be redressed.
9.
With above observations, the application in hand
being merit-less is dismissed accordingly.
J
U D G E
Irfan/PA