' HASAN FEROZ, J.---The instant Criminal Misc. Application No,301 of 2013 preferred under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. On behalf of the applicant, seeking therein to set aside the impugned order dated 23- 10-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Thatta and to direct the respondent No,1 to lodge FIR against Imam Dino Shah, Nazeer Ahmed Shah, Wazeer Ahmed Shah, Haji Idrees, Moona, Ghulam Qadir, Hussain, Karo, Ebrahim, Akber, Gul and Umer and their companions according to law and further that the respondent No,1 to provide legal protection to the applicant and his family.
2. The brief facts as contained by applicant are that he and his family purchased the agricultural land bearing Sr. Nos. 140, 141, 164, 167, 170, 171 and 172 to the extent of 0.30 share from one Bhawauddin in the Rs,13,30,000 and still Rs,3,30,000 is outstanding against the application with an understanding that the Sale-Deed shall be executed after receiving the balance amount by the seller. It has further been stated that Imam Dino. Shah, Nazeer Ahmed Shah, Wazeer Ahmed Shah, Haji Idrees, Moona, Ghulam. Qadir, Hussain, Karo, Ebrahim, Akber, Gul and Umer have tried to occupy the said land of the applicant and have also issued threats and visited the land duly armed with weapons in order to harm the applicant and also have taken away the wood of trees situated at the said after cutting the same. For the said offence the applicant visited the office of respondent No,1 in order to lodge his FIR but all went in vain and thereafter he preferred Cr. Misc..
Application No,634/2013 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Thatta who transferred the same to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Thatta and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge Thatta vide order dated 23-10-2013 dismissed the said Cr. Misc. Application, hence the present application.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant who has contended that the proposed accused have tried to take law in their hands and damaged the tractor of the applicant so also issued threats to him for which he visited the office of Senior Superintendent of Police Thatta who refused to lodge his FIR and further the learned ADJ without considering the merits of the case dismissed his application.
4. I have also heard the learned APG who has vehemently contended that since the dispute between the parties is related to land and the shares of the applicant party A and proposed accused which is a civil dispute and can only be decided at civil forum.
5. I am conscious about the fact that this Court is seized with the powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby this Court has ample powers to meet the ends of justice however the same is to be exercised subject to law and not to bypass the express provisions of law. The powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are to be exercised in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice and such powers being extraordinary in nature are to be exercised in the circumstances when no other remedy under the law is available. The provisions of the section cannot be used to override the express provisions of law as a substitute to the available remedy to circumvent the normal course of law or to deviate from prescribed procedure of law which in all circumstances ought to take effect.
6, The perusal of record shows that applicant claims a share of 0.30 paisas out of the agricultural and situated at Survey Nos. 140, 141, 164, 167, 170, 171 and 172 from Deh Tarki, Tapo Guju, Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta and further perusal of Deh Form-VII shows that proposed accused Imam Dino is also one of the co-sharers in the list of shareholders, which fact can only be ascertained after proper A adjudication. In the present case, the rights of the parties with regard to the land in question can only be decided in proper forum which is available under the Civil Law, therefore, it would not meet the ends of justice to give any findings about a matter for which a remedy has been provided under the law.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the firm view that the order dated 23-10- 2013 in adherence to keeping in view the facts and circumstances and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, hence the instant application is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed.
However, the parties are at their liberty to seek redressal of their grievances from competent court of law.