ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.A.No.S-29 of 2024

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01. For orders on office objection.

02. For the hearing of the main case.

03. For the hearing of M.A.No.278/2024(S/A).

25.07.2024.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Aijaz Ali Kalhoro, Advocate for the private respondent.

Mr. Shewak Rathore, D.P.G for the State.

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

1.        Over-ruled.

2&3.   Based on the allegation of robbery by way of maltreatment to him and his father, by the private respondent; he by making an application u/s.22-A/B Cr.PC, sought a direction against the SHO, P.S Gaji Khuhawar to record his FIR; it was issued accordingly by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Qamber, vide order dated 22.01.2024, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The injuries sustained by the private respondnet are non-cognizable. Nothing has been brought on record which may prove the ownership of the private respondent over the robbed articles. The parties are having political rivalry, which smells of malafide. In such circumstances, the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace ought not to have directed SHO, P.S Gaji Khuhawar, to record FIR against the applicant and others at the instance of the private respondent, by way of impugned order; the same is set aside.

In the case of Rai Ashraf and others Vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 691) it has been held by the 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.”

            Under the discussed circumstances, the instant Criminal Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE