IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Misc. Application No.S-377 of 2023

Applicant: Major (R) Adnan Kayani and 03 others through Mr.Shahid Hussain Rajput, Advocate.

Respondent No.2: Muhammad Juman through Mr. Sikandar Ali Junejo, Advocate.

The State: Through Sardar Ali Shah, Additional P.G.

Date of hearing: 27.11.2023

Date of decision: 27.11.2023

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this application, the applicants have assailed the order dated 03.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Daharki, wherein an application under Section 22-A(6)(i) & 22-B Cr.P.C, filed by the Respondent No.2, was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants, at the very outset, submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Daharki, without applying his judicious mind, in a hurriedly manner, passed the impugned order, which is not tenable under the law; that there appear civil dispute in between the parties and the respondent wants to register a false case by converting the civil litigation into criminal; that neither the applicants have ever trespassed into the lands of Respondent No.2 nor caused or damage to his crop; that the land in dispute was purchased by the Mari Petroleum Gas Company Limited for its use and the respondent was paid entire amount in lieu of compensation; that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. At the end, he submits that instant application be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace may be set-aside. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed reliance upon the case law reported as 2010 YLR 189, 2018 YLR 318, 2014 MLD 1033 and unreported orders both dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Application Nos.560 of 2019 & 870 of 2017.

3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2 submitted that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has rightly passed the impugned order directing the SHO to record the statement of Respondent No.2 as applicants have illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the land of Respondent No.2, and caused damage to the crop so also issued murderous threats, hence this Court does not require any interference in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this application.

4. Learned Addl.P.G has not supported the impugned order and submits that from the contents of application no case for cognizance offence is made out; that civil dispute is admitted by the parties and only the civil court is competent to decide the same. Lastly, he submits that respondent No.2 wants to convert a civil dispute into the criminal by filling instant application which was liable to be dismissed before the lower forum but without going into the real facts it was allowed.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

6. Record reflects that the matter was inquired by the DSP complaint cell by recording statements of both the parties after the notice of justice of peace and such report was furnished before the justice of peace. The report supports the version of the applicants that the MPCL Company purchased a land about 25 Ghuntas in the year, 2008 from the father of respondent No.2 to which company paid half of the payment but the father of respondent No.2 had not transferred the land in favour of the company. The documents attached with this application viz. copy of sale agreement and the documents of bank showing some payments to the father of the respondent No.2 when were confronted with respondent No.2 available in the Court who after going through admitted the same and submits that entire payment was not made by the company to which counsel for the applicants submits that the company is ready to pay the same and the same will be subject to the condition that the respondent No.2 will transfer the land in favour of the company. The respondent No.2 also submits that the company has also occupied entire his land which was not purchased by the company, this allegation has been denied by the counsel for the applicants and submit that the company also purchased the lands from several persons under the respective agreements and is enjoying the possession but the respondent No.2 by using illegal methods is creating hindrance in the smooth working of the company by leveling false allegations. From careful perusal of the contents of the application filed before the justice of peace it appears that the respondent No.2 has managed an story to book the employees of the company in false case in order to obtain some illegal gains otherwise the story in respect of the digging of the land and installing pipelines in the land in short period of time is unbelievable and for that purpose a long time is required. It is observed that there may appear some dispute in between the parties the same is of civil nature for which only the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide the issue.

7. It is observed that the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C have been misused in a number of cases. The Courts in mechanical manner should not allow application under Section 22-A & B and should apply its mind as to whether the applicant has approached the Court with clean hands or it is tainted with malice. The Justice of Peace if from the material placed before him is of the opinion that an offence of cognizable nature is made out then to issue directions for registration of the FIR and if found that there is some dispute in between the parties which is of a civil nature then to dismiss the application and restrain himself from issuance of directions for registration of FIR. If this practice is continued to be allowed that in every case directions are to be issued for registration of FIR that amounted harassment to the poor peoples who face the investigation and the trial in the case may be and ultimately would be acquitted. The law has to be interpreted in a manner that its protection extends to everyone.

8. Under these circumstances, the application in hand is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Daharki, is not tenable under the law; besides carries no weight in the eyes of law hence, the same is hereby set-aside.

9. Application in hand is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE

Ihsan/*