ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

C. P. No.S-231   of  2009.

 

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

08.05.2009.

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For orders on M. A. No.498/2009.

3. For Katcha Peshi.

 

Mr. Muhammad Aslam H. Jatoi, Abro, advocate for the petitioner, alongwith the petitioner.

 

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel, alongwith Inspector Asad Nabi Khichi, the then SHO PS Kamber, now posted as SHO PS Darri, Larkana.

                             ------------------

                   On the notice, the respondents PSI Raza Muhammad Sohu on behalf of DPO Kamber, Inspector Qalandar Bux Soomro, SPO Kamber, Inspector Asad Nabi Khichi, Ex-SHO PS Kamber, SIP Ghulam Muzamil Soomro, SHO PS Drigh, SIP Aijaz Ali Magsi, Ex-SHO PS Behram, HC Rabel Shahani, Mujahid I Team and HC Ashfaque Hussain Gopang, Mujahid-II Team, have filed their statements/comments supported by their affidavits.  On 15.4.2009 the aforesaid police officers were present in Court and had made statement that they will not cause any harassment to the petitioner and that the petitioner is not involved in any case. 

                   Record reflects that petitioner Abdullah alias Ubedullah, Wajid Ali and Muazan Khan had filed counter-affidavits on 20.4.2009.  In their statements, police officers denied all the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner and through counter-affidavits the petitioner has denied the allegations and claims of the aforesaid police officers.

                   After addressing this Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner has conceded that for grant of reliefs sought by the petitioner investigation into controversies is inevitable and it is well settled that when dispute is involving such controversies for grant of relief, the same cannot be effectively adjudicated in a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  The learned advocate for the petitioner further contends that the purpose of filing this petition has been served to the extent that the statement has come on record that there is no case registered against the petitioner and that the respondents police officers will not cause any harassment to the petitioner.  He, therefore, does not press this petition and submits that the petitioner may be set at liberty to avail the remedy before competent Court of law.

                   It is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Court(s) of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.

                   In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in the above terms.  Order accordingly.

 

                                                                                      JUDGE