ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.P.    No.109  of  2011.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

1. For orders on office objection Flag ‘A’.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

14.03.2011

Mr. Naushad Ali Tagar advocate for petitioner.

Miss Rubina Dhamrah, State Counsel along with PSI Akhtar Hussain Burdi, on behalf of DPO, Larkana, Inspector Tofique Ahmed Sadhayo, the then SHO PS Rehmatpur, now SHO Hyderi P.S, HC Ayaz Hussain Shahani and HC Syed Ghulam Rasool Shah of PS Rehmatpur.

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

                        Through instant petition, the petitioner has complained  highhandedness on the part of police officials, particularly respondents No.2 & 3. According to petitioner, he was arrested by them without any FIR or his involvement in any crime by police, who also snatched amount of  Rs.15,200/- from him.

                        Notices were issued to the respondents, as well as respondents No.2 & 3, who have submitted their comments along with affidavits, wherein allegations have been denied. Today Inspector Tofique Ahmed Sadhayo, respondent No.1 is present, who vehemently denied the accusations and  has placed on record copy of the FIR No.148/2002 registered at Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah, district Shikarpur under section 302, 148, 149, 337-H(2), PPC and 7 ATA and the challan, as well as FIR No.62/2002 registered at Police Station Lakhi Ghulam  Shah under section 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148, 149, 114, 34, PPC along with challan, wherein petitioner namely Abdul Raheem has been shown as one of the accused absconder. It has been further intimated that a compliant filed  by the same petitioner before Additional DPO, Larkana in respect of similar allegations,  was investigated and was found to be false.

                        Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the hereinabove facts submitted the FIRs mentioned hereinabove are old one, whereas the same were registered against step brother of petitioner. He further submitted  that  an enquiry into the allegations against respondents No.2 & 3 may be conducted by some impartial police officer.

                        After hearing the parties concerned and perusing the record, it appears that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as certain facts were concealed. Moreover, his allegations are seriously disputed by the respondents and inquiry into allegations has already been conducted, wherein the same allegations have been found to be false. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner, at this stage.  The instant petition is hereby dismissed, however, the respondents are cautioned to act strictly in accordance with law.

Judge