FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---Through the instant criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant has questioned the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shikarpur whereby the application of the applicant under section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. was dismissed on the grounds that equally efficacious and alternate remedy of filing direct complaint is available to the applicant.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the buffaloes of applicant were sitting in a pond for their routine bath when a car fallen down in the same pond due to which his cattle received severe injuries and three of his buffaloes could not survive while one is still suffering the injuries. It is alleged by the applicant that respondent No,3 was driving the car and respondent No,4 was the SHO of the concerned Police Station at that time. The applicant approached to the said SHO but he did not lodge FIR and unduly favored the respondent No,3.
3. While pressing the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length. He submits that the buffaloes, who died in the incident were the source of livelihood for the applicant due to which he had suffered severe loss and mental torture and agony. According to him, the applicant had incurred huge amount for the treatment of the remaining animal and he had approached to respondent No,4 for lodging FIR but he kept him on false hope. He submits that the applicant should be compensated in respect of his loss occurred to him.. In response to a query, he submits that the offence of negligence and avoiding to lawful duty is attracted to the instant matter. He submits that the. applicant could not take any action against the car driver as the respondent No,4 is avoiding to provide his address, which shows that he is in connivance with the car driver.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 submits that it was an accident and the police party headed by the respondent No,4 reached on the spot and had provided timely assistance to the applicant and also rescued the car driver. He submits that it was an accident in which no penal section attracts and the applicant has not made any request regarding the same. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 submits that the respondent No,4 is ready to provide the photocopy of CNIC of respondent No,3, which was deposited by him at Police Station.
5. The learned D.P.G submits that the applicant may file a private complaint against the respondent No,3 as advised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the impugned order.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the available record. In the instant case, the grievance of the applicant is to receive compensation regarding loss sustained to his herd of cattle. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the respondents have acted in negligence due to which the incident has taken place and the applicant has sustained loss. In my humble view, in the present case, the most appropriate and efficacious remedy to the applicant is available in a tortuous action through which he will be able to get compensation as he desired. In the instant case, lodging of FIR will not open the room for compensation to the applicant for which the appropriate action is a suit for damages. I am of the view that the impugned order is otherwise proper and in addition to a private complaint, for compensation the appropriate remedy is available to him against the tortfeasor. Resultantly, the instant criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed.