2022 YLRN 131

GHULAM SHABIR Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR

Citation2022 YLRN 131

CourtSindh High Court

Judge(s)Irshad Ali Shah

ORDER

1. IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J .---The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Cr. Misc. Application are that the private respondent by way of filing an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C sought for direction for recording of his FIR against the applicant. It was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Dadu vide his order dated 02.05.2013 with the observation that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a complaint before learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad at Camp Dadu. In end of such complaint he sought for issuance of direction for recording of his FIR against the applicant and others for manipulating a registered sale deed. It was assigned for enquiry to Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment Dadu, who furnished his report. Consequently, instead of taking cognizance of the incident or otherwise, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad directed the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Dadu to record FIR of the private respondent by his order dated 11.10.2013, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad was having no authority to have directed recording of FIR of the private respondent that too on a complaint. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

3. Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant Misc. Application.

4. I have considered the above arguments and has perused the record.

5. The dispute between the parties is relating to a registered document, which could only be declared false or otherwise by Civil Court having jurisdiction. It was complaint which was filed by the private respondent, after preliminary enquiry through Circle Officer Dadu, it was either to have been brought on record or to have been dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad, he as such was having hardly a jurisdiction to have directed Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Dadu to record FIR of the private respondent even as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. By ordering so, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad without lawful justification has dispensed with the inquiry and permission of competent authority which is necessary for registration of case of like nature, as is prescribed by Rule 11(2) of Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1933. Such act of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad being against scheme/spirit of law could hardly be approved. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained on legal as well as factual premises, it is set-aside.

6. Instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly.

7. SA/G-10/Sindh Order accordingly.