2017 PLP 11 (YLRN)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through captioned Constitution Petition, petitioner Abdul Raheem has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and impugned order dated 12.12.2014, passed by the Court of II-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Pano Akil, whereby final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was approved in "B"-Class.

2. Precisely, facts mentioned in instant petition are that npetitioner filed Cr. Misc. Application No.464 of 2014, which was disposed of by Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Sukkur vide order dated 05.08.2014, and petitioner lodged FIR bearing No.64 of 2014, under sections 148, 149, 427 and 364, P.P.C. During investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statement of Mst. Naseeba wife of petitioner under section 161, Cr.P.C., who supported the averments of FIR but Investigating Officer submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate under "B"-Class, which was approved by the Court vide impugned order.

3. Perusal of averments of FIR reflects that petitioner lodged FIR on 08.10.2014, stating that he is disputed with Muhammad Narejo over landed property and such cases are pending before the Court. On 10.03.2014, at 11.30 a.m., he along with his wife Mst. Bakhtiawar and son Roshan Ali aged about 40 years, went to their land for routine work where accused Muhammad, Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Ali, Ghulam, Ibrahim, Usman, Muhammad Raheem, Ramzan, Ali Dinno, Daleel, Muhammad, Hakim, Ghulam Mustafa, Bhalle Dino, Sachal, Kaman, Wasayo, Manghan, Gul Muhammad, Khadim, and 10 unidentified persons armed with hatches, guns and Kalashnikovs, boarded in four tractors and trolley came and tried to cut the trees from his land and also tried to dispossess the applicant from his agricultural land. Petitioner asked the accused not to cut the trees but they refused. Accused persons kidnapped his son and took him by tractor and trolley. Applicant informed the incident to noble of the locality but his son did not return to home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused persons had kidnapped son of the petitioner, but investigating officer did not conduct investigation fairly and submitted report under "B"-Class and extended favour to the accused persons; that learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the material available on record properly and accepted summery report in mechanical manner, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside and Investigating Officer may be directed to submit challan against the accused persons. However, learned counsel candidly admitted that son of the petitioner had returned to home by himself and was not recovered from the custody of the accused persons.

5. Learned AAG supported the impugned order and contended that petitioner has lodged false FIR against the accused persons, as they are disputed over the land.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record minutely.

7. Perusal of record reflects that parties are already disputed over landed property, which is reflected from the averments of the FIR. The incident occurred in bright day at about 11.30 a.m., near the village, but neither petitioner raised cries at the spot during commission of alleged offence nor any independent person from the vicinity had supported the allegations leveled by the petitioner in his FIR. Undoubtedly, Roshan Ali son of the petitioner, aged about 40 years, himself returned to his home, and reportedly he remained in Karachi. Moreover, alleged abductee was not recovered from the captivity of accused persons. There is delay of about seven months in lodgment of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the petitioner, and even he has not mentioned the names of nobles of the locality to whom he made complaint regarding abduction of his son. Apart from his wife Mst. Bakhtiawar, none has supported the allegations leveled in FIR. Admittedly, parties are disputed over landed property and such cases are sub-judice before the Courts. Neither petitioner resisted the accused at the spot nor approached the police instantly after the alleged occurrence. Similarly, accused did not demand any ransom for release of abductee nor caused any kind of injury to him. Petitioner during investigation, did not move any complaint regarding partial attitude of the Investigating Officer that he did not record the statements of witnesses or recorded statements incorrectly or refused to consider the documentary evidence produced by him. Investigating Officer had conducted investigation fairly and honestly, thus without showing any tangible evidence and solid reasons, summery report submitted under "C"-Class could not be agitated.

8. Perusal of impugned order emanates that learned Judicial Magistrate has passed just and proper order discussing all the relevant aspects of the case and petitioner has failed to point out any material irregularity and serious illegality, while passing the impugned order, hence same does not call for any interference and stands maintained. Report submitted by Investigating Officer under section 173, Cr.P.C. under "B"-Class is approved under "C"-Class as no mandatory notice was issued by learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing impugned order.

9. For the forgoing facts and reasons, instant petition being devoid of any legal substance stands dismissed. SL/A-66/Sindh Petition dismissed.