ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.A.No.S-27 of 2024

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01. For orders on office objection.

02. For the hearing of the main case.

03. For hearing of M.A.No.257/2024 (S/A).

29.07.2024.

Mr. Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Suhendar Kumar, Advocate for the private respondent

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

  -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

1.        Over-ruled.

2&3.   It is alleged by the private respondent that the proposed accused by trespassing in his house took away his belongings by maltreating and keeping him and his witnesses in fear of death. Based on such allegation, he by making an application u/s.22-A/B Cr.PC sought direction against the SHO, P.S Qamber City to record his FIR, which was issued by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Qamber, vide order dated 19.01.2024, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by preferring the instant Cr.Misc.Application.

            It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the private respondent only to settle his matrimonial dispute with the applicants, intends to involve them in a false case and such aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Qamber, while passing the impugned order; the same being illegal to be set aside by this Court.

            Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought dismissal of the instant Cr.Misc.Application by contending that the registration of      FIR of the cognizable offence could not be prevented under any circumstances.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The SHO, P.S Qamber City has denied the occurrence of the incident in his report. The parties admittedly are disputed over matrimonial affairs concerning the recovery of dowry articles after decree of Khulla passed by the Family Court at Larkana. In such a situation, the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the private respondent to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with the applicants intends to involve them in a false case, could not be lost sight of.

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 impugned order is set aside and the instant Criminal Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE