ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.A.No.S-166 of 2024

(Mst.Maryam Vs. SHO, PS Garhi Yasin & Ors)

 

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the main case.

 

18.07.2024.

 

Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

                                                 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged by the applicant that the proposed accused being police officials by trespassing in her house, took away her belongings. Based on such allegation, she by making an application    u/s.22-A/B Cr.PC sought direction against SHO, P.S Garhi Yasin to record her FIR; it was dismissed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shikarpur, vide order dated 14.05.2024, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

 

2.        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that a cognizable offence has taken place, therefore, learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, ought not to have dismissed the application of the applicant by way of impugned order; the same being illegal is to be set aside by this Court with direction to SHO, P.S Garhi Yasin to record FIR of the above said incident at the instance of the applicant, which is opposed by learned D.P.G for the State by contending that no incident as alleged by the applicant has taken place and she is intending to involve the police officials in a false case to get favour from them for her relatives who are hardened criminals of the area.

 

3.        Heard arguments and perused the record.

 

4.        The incident as alleged by the applicant is denied by the police in its reports, which could not be overlooked. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the incident as alleged by the applicant has taken place and for that her FIR is not being recorded by the police, then she has an alternate remedy to exhaust by filing a direct complaint of the incident before the Court having jurisdiction; such remedy, if exhausted, besides being alternate, would be adequate in the circumstances. Even otherwise, no illegality is noticed in the impugned order, which may justify this Court to interfere with the same.

 

5.        Based on the above discussion, the instant Crl.Misc.Application is dismissed.

                                                                                                           JUDGE