ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt. Petition No. S- 594 of 2010.      

 

Date

Order with signature of Judge

 

For Katcha Peshi.

10.05.2010.

                        Mr. Ghulam Mehdi Sangi, Advocate alongwith petitioner.

                        Miss Rubina Dhamrah, State counsel, alongwith SIP Abdul Waheed Abro, SIP Abdul Majeed, Inspector Shah Jehan, H.C Shahmir Qureshi and H.C Moula Bux Dahani.

~~~

 

                        Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for the respondents, and also perused the relevant record.

 

                        The petitioner in his earlier petition being C.P. No.D- 388/2010, had prayed as under:

 

(a)                                     To direct respondents No. 1 to 5 to produce the detainees mentioned in para No.2 of this petition before this Court and further be pleased to direct the respondents to produce all the detail of cases if registered against the petitioner party.

 

(b)                                     To direct respondents No.1 to 4 to return all the valuables taken away by them mentioned in para No.2-A of this petition to the petitioner.

 

(c)                                     Award costs.

 

(d)                                     Any other relief available under the circumstances may also be granted.

 

 

                        After comments were filed by the respondents in the above petition of the petitioner, the division bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.03.2010, passed the following order:

 

                        “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

 

                        Now the same petitioner has again filed the present petition being C.P. No. S- 594/2010, with the following prayer:

 

(a)                                     To direct respondents No.1 to 4 to return back the household articles and cattle of the petitioner party, as mentioned in para No.4 above, without any loss of future time;

 

(b)                                     To direct the respondent No. 5 to record the statement of petitioner himself and if a cognizable offence is made out then get the F.I.R of the petitioner registered against the respondents No.1 to 4, in accordance with law;

 

(c)                                     To direct the respondent No. 6 to hold enquiry against the respondents No.1 to 4 regarding the above mentioned allegations made by the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry proceedings take strict departmental action against the respondents No. 1 to 4;

 

(d)                                     To direct respondents No.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner and his family members against the highhandedness of respondents No.1 to 4;

 

(e)                                     Award costs of the petition;

 

(f)                                        Any other equitable relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

 

 

                        The respondents No.1 to 5, have filed their comments/ written statements respectively and they have denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner, whose main contention is that after filing the earlier petition by the petitioner, the respondents had released the detainees and on their promise for return of the articles of the petitioners, he withdrew his earlier petition on 18.03.2010, but after its disposal the respondents did not return articles of the petitioner and thereby they have cheated petitioner while getting his earlier petition dismissed as withdrawn.

 

                        Since the earlier petition of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, the second petition for the similar prayer in respect of his articles is not competent but for the plea that he has been cheated by the respondents, he can avail the remedy before proper forum in accordance with law instead of repeating the petition before this Court.

 

                        Apart from above, the petitioner has also prayed in his present petition for providing protection against the highhandedness of respondents No.1 to 4, who in reply to it, submitted that the petitioner is giving shelter to his cousin, namely, Ali Gohar, who is required in two criminal cases. Nevertheless, the petitioner is entitled to be given due protection in accordance with law and the respondents are legally bound to do so.

 

                        In the circumstances, the present petition of the petitioner is disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

 

                                                                                                            Judge