PRIVATE COMPLAINT 2003 SCMR 1406.Muhammad Punhal V/S Abdul Wahid Abbasi & another (SC.FB) S.200 & 202 CrPC. Examination of complainant. Issuance of process. Holding of preliminary enquiry after examination of complainant was not precondition for the issuance of the process. (2) Postponement of issuance of process. When issuance of process was postponed the same would not be a ground for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. Provisions of S.202 CrPC were enabling provisions and not obligatory and non-compliance of same would not amount to illegality. PLD 2007 SC 9. Noor Muhammad V/S The State & Others S.200/202/203/204/439 CrPC. S.302/109 PPC. Possibility of acquittal----Effect----Possibility of accusation turning out to be false or frivolous at trial should not forbear the court from issuing process, if material available, prima facie discloses case against accused. (2) Prima facie case - meaning --- Issuance or non-issuance of process-----Principles-----Proceedings U/S 204 or 203 CrPC depend upon existence or non-existence of sufficient ground which had been taken by courts as the existence of prima facie case. Two expressions i.e. existence of sufficient ground and prima facie case have been construed by courts interchangeably. If a complaint is made before court, it is only to see existence of a prima facie case either on the basis of averments made in complaint and statement of complainant on oath or on the basis of inquiry, if the Court thinks fit to hold inquiry in order to ascertain truth or falsehood of the complaint. (3) Mere summoning of accused by court to answer charges levelled against him was not tantamount to any infringement of any right of a person, rather it was opportunity afforded to him to explain his position. (4) Issuance of process---Examination of material-----Principles-----Burden of proof---- Court is not expected to examine material minutely at the stage of issuance of process; whereas at the stage of trial, court appraises evidence thoroughly and records its findings on the basis of such appraisal and any benefit of doubt arising out of such inquiry should be given to accused. Preliminary inquiry is not the stage where a material available on record is assessed in depth but a prima facie case has to be made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of the process. Burden of proof in preliminary inquiry for issuance of process is much lighter on the complainant as compared to the burden of proof on prosecution at trial of offence. Prosecution, during trial, is to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and at preliminary stage complainant is not required to discharge heavy burden of proof. Court cannot overstretch the proceedings as to convert preliminary inquiry or averments made in complaint to a stage of full fledged trial of the case. APPEAL ALLOWED. NLR 2007 CrLJ 423. Noor Muhammad V/S The State (Larger Bench) S.200-204 CrPC. There is a marked distinction as to the approach of appraisal of material on record i.e. averments made in the complaint and statement of complainant made on oath at the time of holding preliminary inquiry for determining whether process is or is not to be issued to accused. The Court at preliminary inquiry stage is not expected to examine the material minutely whereas at the stage of trial it appraises the evidence thoroughly on records its findings on the basis of such appraisal and any benefit of doubt arising out of inquiry is to be given to the accused. Preliminary inquiry is not the stage where a material available on record is assessed in-depth but a prima facie case has to be made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of process to accused. (2) S.200-204 CrPC. The burden of proof in a preliminary inquiry for issuance of process in a complaint case is quite lighter on complainant as compared to burden of proof on prosecution at trial of an offence as prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. At preliminary stage of complaint, the complainant is not required to discharge heavy burden of proof of proving his case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts cannot over stretch preliminary inquiry proceedings so as to convert preliminary inquiry into full-fledged trial of the case. (3) The possibility of accusation in complaint turning out to be false or frivolous at trial should not prevent the court from issuing process against accused if material available, prima facie discloses case against accused. At preliminary inquiry stage of complaint, a protracted inquiry or full dress rehearsal of trial is not required by law. Moreover, S.250 CrPC also provides sufficient safeguard to an accused against a false and frivolous accusation by complainant, which envisages that Court while acquitting an accused at trial stage, holding charge brought against him was false, frivolous or vexatious has sufficient power to award adequate compensation to acquitted accused. CASE REMANDED. 2: Preliminary Enquiry by Police PLD 1998 Lahore 193. Allah Ditta Hamlani V/S Inspector General & Others (DB). S.190 CrPC. Court on receipt of complaint and without taking cognizance could direct concerned SHO to register case. Where, however, such court itself takes cognizance it would proceed to record statement of complainant U/S 200 CrPC. When any matter was referred to police for investigation, the police would be under legal obligation to collect all evidence about alleged occurrence. Collection of evidence would include effecting recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating articles. General misconception that if complaint was filed, court would be helpless to effect recoveries of incriminating articles was wrong and ill-founded. PLD 1998 Lahore 539 Kalu & 4 Others V/S The State. S.200 & 202 CrPC. S.302/148/149 PPC. Where complainant had approached the court with a private complaint being dissatisfied with the conduct of the police, it was inexpedient and improper to entrust the matter to any police officer for investigation. (2) Preliminary inquiry.... Accused has no right of participation... In preliminary proceedings U/S 200 & 202 CrPC, the person complained against has no right of audience or participation, until he is summoned as an accused in the case. 2001 MLD 1089. Nazar Muhammad & another V/S The State & 3 Others (Peshawar). S.156, 200, 202, 203, 204 & 561-A CrPC. Magistrate after recording statement of the complainant U/S 200 sent complaint to Tehsildar for inquiry and Tehsildar after conducting inquiry sent back the case with observation that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused and the Magistrate had directed police to register a case against the accused. Validity. Order for registration of case by the Magistrate was not warranted by law and was liable to be set aside because once a cognizance was taken U/S 200 the Magistrate was required to adopt procedure of complaint case mentioned in S.200 to 204 CrPC and could not refer the matter to the police U/S 156(3) CrPC. Only course left open to the magistrate under law was to proceed with the trial of the complaint himself. Order passed by the Magistrate was quashed in circumstances. 2002 PCrLJ 1208. Bashir Ahmad & another V/S The State & 2 Others (Lahore) S.204 CrPC. Issue of process. Provisions of S.204 do not require availability of legally admissible evidence for the purpose of issuance of process against an accused person. All that is required at such stage is the material upon which an opinion can be formed by the court regarding availability of sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused person. Statement made by a witness in his examination-in-chief can suffice for such purpose as such a statement may furnish sufficient ground or material for formation of an opinion by the court for the purposes of S.204 CrPC. 3: Participation of Accused in Enquiry U/S 202 CrPC. PLD 1998 Lahore 539 Kalu & 4 Others V/S The State. S.200 & 202 CrPC. S.302/148/149 PPC. Preliminary inquiry.... Accused has no right of participation... In preliminary proceedings U/S 200 & 202 CrPC, the person complained against has no right of audience or participation, until he is summoned as an accused in the case. 2002 MLD 1880. Allied Bank of Pakistan V/S Ahmed Ibrahim & Others (Karachi DB) S.200, 202, 203 & 204 CrPC. Trial court passed order without recording evidence as provided U/S 202. Accused, at preliminary stage of inquiry, had no locus standi to participate in proceedings. Procedure adopted by trial court allowing accused to participate in proceedings was contrary to law. Procedure for dealing with complaint was that the court, on receiving a complaint took cognizance of offence and after examining complainant up oath, if it was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, it issued process U/S 204 against the accused. If court found that no prima facie case had been made out, could could dismiss the complaint U/S 203. Preliminary inquiry could only be ordered when court, after recording statement of complainant upon oath, deemed it necessary. Court, if after inquiry was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out against accused, it could issue process otherwise would dismiss the complaint. 2007 PCrLJ 891.Noor Zada V/S Muhammad Khalid & 6 others (Lahore) S.202 & 537 CrPC. Summoning of accused at preliminary stage before issuing process – Effect – Where the Court while holding an inquiry in a private complaint issues summons/notice to the accused before issuing process, such action would not vitiate the proceedings as it would be a mere irregularity curable U/S 537 CrPC. PETITION DISMISSED. 4: Mode of Summoning Accused 1997 PCrLJ 1074. Maqbool Ahmed & another V/S The State (Lahore). S.302/342/364/147/148/201 PPC. Accused not found guilty of murder by various investigating agencies. Sessions Court, while issuing process against the accused in private complaint, should have issued summons or bailable warrants against them to procure their attendance instead of issuing non-bailable warrants. Sessions Court also after the accused had appeared before it while acting U/S 91 CrPC should have directed them to execute bonds for appearance in the court which was not done and such lapse on the part of trial court militated against the law. Existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding in a complaint case being not equivalent to the existence of reasonable grounds that the accused were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. Application of accused in stricto senso could not be considered to be the application for pre-arrest bail and the contention that they had not alleged malafides was irrelevant. BBA CONFIRMED 2001 PCrLJ 1123. M. Siddique V/S Rehmat & Others (Lahore) S.204 & 439 CrPC. S.302 PPC. Accused after having been summoned by trial court in the complaint case through summons was directed to file bail bonds. Validity. FIR, was registered against the accused, but no challan was submitted in the court. Sessions Court in the complaint filed by the complainant after recording preliminary evidence issued summons against the accused and on their appearance in the court in pursuance thereof directed them to file bail bonds in the sum of Rs:50,000 each by means of the impugned order. Practice of summoning the accused through bailable warrants was going on for the last so many years and was based on good reasoning and interpretation of the statute. No illegality had been committed by the Sessions Court in passing the impugned order which did not call for any interference. Revision petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. PLD 2006 Lahore 227.Muhammad Ijaz V/S Nadeem & 3 Others S.91 & 204 CrPC. Power to take bond for appearance and issue of summons. Scope – S.91 & 204 CrPC are not restrict in their application to cases instituted on a private complaint U/S 200 CrPC. Provisions of S.91 CrPC are general in nature and are applicable to any person for whose appearance or arrest a court is empowered to issue a summon or a warrant. (2) S.91, 204 & 497(5). S.302/324/148/149 PPC. Cancellation of bail, refusal of. Accused who were placed in column No.2 of the challan were summoned by the Sessions Court and on their appearance were directed to submit bail bonds in the sum of Rs:100,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, vide the impugned order. Sessions Court, after taking cognizance, had competently passed the said order which was consistent with the provisions of S.91 CrPC which were not only applicable to the private complaints instituted u/s 200 CrPC. but were also applicable to the cases based on an FIR. Purpose of S.91 CrPC was to ensure presence of accused, who were directed by the court to execute the bonds. Bails allowed to accused was not cancelled and impugned order was upheld accordingly. BAIL NOT CANCELLED. NLR 2008 SD 156.Noor Zada V/S Muhammad Khalid etc. (Lahore) S.202, 537 CrPC. Irregularity regarding summoning of accused at preliminary stage would not vitiate the proceedings as such irregularity is cureable under S. 537. Contention that in all cases where there had been a departure from provisions of S.202, the entire proceedings would be liable to be set aside rejected as devoid of force. PETITION AGAINST DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT. 5: Cognizance in Private Complaint PLD 2000 Quetta 12. Mst. Mariam Sultana V/S The State. S.202 CrPC. S.302 PPC. Magistrate had to take cognizance u/s 190(3) not for commencing the trial, but in order to ascertain as to whether case was one which required to be sent for trial to court of Session or was one which he could proceed to try himself. Where a private complaint u/s 302 PPC was filed directly before Sessions Judge, he should return same for prosecution to a Magistrate and Sessions Judge could take cognizance on report of Magistrate u/s 202 CrPC. Sessions Judge before whom complaint was directly filed referred same to Additional Sessions Judge who sent same for further enquiry to Judicial Magistrate u/s 202 CrPC. Validity. Procedure adopted by Sessions Judge, was not strictly in accordance with law, but since no prejudice, whatever, had been caused to any one, irregularity could be ignored. 2001 MLD 1735. Imran Raza Khan, Advocate V/S SSP Lahore & 2 Others (Lahore DB). S.19, 6 & Schedule Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Private Complaint, entertainment of. Anti-Terrorism Court has power to entertain a private complaint directly if it discloses the commission of offence falling within the ambit of S.6 of the Act of 1997 and its schedule. 6: Simultaneous Proceedings in Complaint & FIR 1997 PCrLJ 1771 Bashir V/S The State & another (Lahore). S.302 & 319 PPC. Constitution of Pakistan 1971, Art.13. CrPC (V of 1898) S.403 & 439. Apart from the private complaint U/S 302 PPC, there was a separate challan case U/S 319 PPC. Trial in the complaint case having almost concluded, if the accused was convicted for offence U/S 302 PPC, prosecution would not be interested to produce the challan case U/S 319 PPC, which would not be violative of the provisions of Art.13 of the constitution and S.403 CrPC. Trial Court, therefore, was directed to keep the complaint case pending and to commence proceedings in the challan case U/S 319 PPC, record evidence of the parties and thereafter decide the two cases simultaneously so as to avoid two contradictory judgments. 1998 PCrLJ 1689. Mst. Naziran V/S Saif & Others (FSC.DB). S.239/540 CrPC. Private complaint and police challan pending in trial court. Procedure. Trial court siezed of the complaint and challan case has to take up the complaint case first for trial and after recording statements of complainant’s witnesses has to record statements of prosecution witnesses named in the challan cse but not named in the complaint case and produced by the complainant as court witnesses U/S 540 CrPC so that they can be cross-examined by both the parties. Such a procedure will enable the court to have the whole evidence included in one trial and decision can be arrived at after a proper consideration of the entire material relied upon by both the parties. 2000 SCMR 641. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi V/S The State & another S.302/148/149 PPC. Complaint case. Cross cases. Complaint case has to be taken up first for trial and the police challan case to be taken up thereafter in cross-cases based on private complaint and police challan. Trial court, however, was directed to pronounce judgment in both the cases simultaneously to avoid prejudice to any of the parties. 2001 MLD 667. S.302/394/458/411 PPC. S.265-D & 439 CrPC. Simultaneous trial in challan case and complaint case. Validity. Trial court had framed charge in challan case as well as in complaint case taking cognizance in both the cases simultaneously. Set of accused persons in the complaint case and in the challan case were not entirely different. Petitioner had been arraigned as accused in both the cases. Trial court had rightly started proceedings in both the cases simultaneously so that the story in both the cases should be put in juxtaposition for coming to the right conclusion. No prejudice, prima facie, seemed to have been caused to the accused by the mode of trial adopted by the Trial Court in both the case and he would have a fair opportunity of trial. Trial Court had specifically observed in the impugned order that the fairness of the trial required that evidence in both the cases should be recorded separately and the judgment in the cases be announced simultaneously. REVISION DISMISSED 2001 PCrLJ 244. Mst. Kausar Shaheen V/S Said Rasool (FSC.DB). S.10/11 Zina Ord. Chap.XII-A S.265-A to 265-N & 200 CrPC. Complaint case and challan case. Procedure. Challan as well as complaint cases could not proceed simultaneously and proper course was to take up the complaint case first and stay the proceedings in the challan case. While in proceeding with the complaint case witnesses listed in police challan should also be examined as court-witnesses U/S 540 CrPC so that the witnesses can be cross-examined by both the parties and decision can be arrived at by the court after proper consideration of the entire material available on record and relied upon by the parties. CASE REMANDED NLR 2002 SD 433. Mst. Mehtab V/S Khair Muhammad @ Badal & Others (SC.FB) Trial of complaint and challan cases. The dictum of Supreme Court in Noor Elahi’s case (1966) would not apply when cognizance of both complaint and challan cases has been taken with little difference of time and such trial has caused no prejudice. (ii) S.5(3), 5A(9) STA Act, 1975. Trial of case on complaint filed by complainant cannot be challenged by complainant with contention that cognizance of complaint could not be taken by Special Court as such cognizance could have been taken only by Sessions Judge U/S 200 CrPC. which provisions are not applicable to Special Court constituted under the Act. Such objection to exercise of jurisdiction by Special Court would not be sustainable when its object was to frustrate the decision of Special Court on hyper-technical objection. Held: Special Judge in circumstances of the case had rightly exercised jurisdiction U/S 5(3) R/W S.5A(9). NLR 2003 CrLJ 708. Abdur Rashid V/S Muhammad Gulzar & another (Lahore) Complaint case shall be tried first when complaint case and challan case relating to same occurrence are consolidated to be tried by the trial court. Order by trial court directing trial of complaint case first cannot be subsequently reviewed on application seeking trial of challan case first. Order of trial court dismissing such application upheld by High Court by dismissing revision application filed to challenge it. NLR 2003 CrLJ 792. Muhammad Luqman V/S The State etc. (Multan DB) S.526 CrPC. Case pending before Magistrate. Qua same occurrence, accused in case pending before Magistrate filing private complaint before Special Court summoning complainant in case before Magistrate. High Court transferring case before Magistrate to Special Court as it was undeniable that private complaint filed before Special Court was cross version of the incident. PLD 1966 SC 708 cited. NLR 2004 SD 672. Muhammad Sharif etc. V/S The State (FSC.FB) S.302/34 PPC. Complaint case should have been decided separately when separate evidence had been recorded in complaint case and challan case and two different versions of the same occurrence had been taken by complainant in complaint case and by police in challan case. MURDER REFERENCE NOT CONFIRMED – DEATH SENTENCE 2006 PCrLJ 1709. Muhammad Zad V/S Shahid Tufail & 3 Others (Lahore) S.154 & 200 CrPC. S.302/199 & 34 PPC. Challan case and complaint case. Police, duringcourse of investigation, came to the conclusion that accused mentioned in the FIR were innocent so they were not arrested. Petitioner/complainant feeling aggrieved filed complaint, after recording preliminary evidence respondents were summoned. Trial court took cognizance and framed charge and thereafter recorded statement of three witnesses. Grievance of petitioner, who lodged complaint, was that police with mala fide intention declared accused mentioned in FIR as innocent and never arrested them. Court also summoned challan case and started proceedings in challan case which had been challenged. Investigating officer, who was mentioned as witness in challan case figured nowhere in complaint case. If the challan case was to be taken up first then petitioner would have no right to cross-examine IO to bring the truth on the record because IO had declared respondents innocent without any material on record. Impugned order was set aside and trial court was directed to stop proceedings in challan case and to start proceedings in the complaint case. All witnesses mentioned in complaint case would be examined as prosecution witnesses, while remaining witnesses, who were mentioned in challan case, were allowed to be examined as Court witnesses in order to bring the true facts on the record. 2008 MLD 728. Manzoor Akbar Turk V/S Raja Ashiq Hussain & 6 Others (Lahore) S.193 & 204 CrPC. S.302/324/148/149 PPC. Sessions court had taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of facts mentioned in complaint but had shown its reluctance to proceed further on the basis of report of the police officer. After having taken cognizance Sessions Court was required to process both the cases in accordance with the provisions of S.193 CrPC read with S.204 CrPC. Till that stage both the cases would be dealth with independently. Accused summoned in the complaint case or in the challan case would be dealth with separately and supplied copies of required documents and then trial court would proceed with the cases according to the law laid down by Supreme Court in Nur Elahi’s case reported as PLD 1966 Supreme Court 708. Sessions Court while dealing with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, and its conduct was not in accordance with law. Impugned order was consequently set aside with the direction to trial court to proceed further with the police report case observing the provisions of sections 193 and 204 CrPC before framing the charge in the complaint case initiated upon the report of police officer. Since accused in both the cases were the same, trial court would consolidate both the complaint case and the challan case and then frame the charge, complete all proceedings of the trial and hold proceedings in either of the two cases, examine all the witnesses of both the cases as prosecution witnesses and after having fulfilled the required formalities would announce one judgment in both the cases. 7: Alternate Remedy: 2001 SCMR 1556. Wajid Ali Khan Durrani & Others V/S Government of Sindh (FB). S.302/34 PPC. S.154 CrPC. Alternate remedy though was provided to an aggrieved party under the law by way of lodging complaint, but mere fact that an alternate remedy had been provided for, could not debar the court from giving direction to the police to record another FIR in an appropriate case. High Court, in circumstances, had rightly directed to the police concerned to register a third FIR at the behest of the widows of the deceased. Petition for leave to appeal against judgment of High Court were dismissed. PETITION DISMISSED 2003 PCrLJ 319. Maulvi Shahzado Dreho V/S Khalid Mahmood Soomro (Karachi) S.154 CrPC. Art.199 Constitution of Pakistan. Petitioner had prayed that he having been harassed and maltreated by the Deputy Commissioner and Senior Police Officer and other police officials, FIR ordered to be lodged against them. Petition was resisted on the ground that if petitioner was aggrieved by action of said officers he could file a private complaint before a Magistrate or a suit for damages. Validity. Petitioner though was at liberty to file a private complaint or a civil suit, but law had nowhere prohibited or disentitled a person from filing a complaint with police against any person who in his opinion had committed a penal offence. Word “shall” used in S.154 CrPC had clearly indicated that the same had been used in mandatory sense and did not allow any discretionary powers to officer-in-charge of a police station and if the information given was cognizable SHO had no choice, but to register complaint and enter the same in book prescribed by law. Private complaint would not be an appropriate and adequate remedy for the petitioner in view of allegations made against officers concerned. Petitioner had right to ask officer-in-charge of police station to record FIR against said officers who had committed a cognizable offence. Petitioner had fundamental right to require Police Officer to act in accordance with law. No one could deprive petitioner of his right guaranteed under the Constitution to be treated in accordance with law. NLR 2008 CrLJ 189. Naik Muhammad etc. V/S Naseebullah & another (Quetta) S.22-A CrPC. Refusal by Sessions Judge to order registration of FIR would not place a bar on filing of private complaint. Such refusal would not amount to acquittal and complaint filed would not constitute exposure of accused to double jeopardy U/S 403 CrPC. QUASHMENT REFUSED. 8: Fresh Complaint on similar facts: 2001 PCrLJ 914. Allah Wadhayo V/S Wali Muhammad & 3 Others (Karachi) S.200, 203 403 & 439 CrPC. S.161 PPC. Dismissal of complaint. Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of. Complaint earlier filed by complainant, was withdrawn on the ground that an amicable settlement had taken place between the parties. After withdrawal of the complaint, another complaint was filed by the complainant under same provisions of law containing the same facts. Trial court dismissed the said complaint. Validity. Withdrawal of earlier complaint would operate acquittal of accused and complaint on same facts was not maintainable U/S 403 CrPC as well as Art.132 of Consitution and also on principle of autrefois acquit autrefois convict. Just and proper order of trial court dismissing second complaint could not be interfered with in revision by High court. PLD 2002 SC 687. Azmat Bibi & another V/S Asifa Riaz & 3 Others. S.200, 204 & 403. Dismissal of private complaint for non-prosecution. Filing of second complaint. Maintainability. Accused persons were neither tried earlier nor were convicted or acquitted, the provisions of S.403, CrPC & Art.13 of the Constitution were not applicable in circumstances. (2) S.204/265-K/561-A CrPC. First complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution while second complaint was withdrawn for some technical defect. Complainant filed third complaint for the same occurrence, against the same accused persons. Objection was raised to the maintainability of the third complaint. Accused persons filed application U/S 265-K CrPC for their acquittal which was dismissed by the trial court and petition U/S 561-A CrPC in High Court also met the same fate. Validity. Complaint in question was maintainable and competently filed. Supreme Court found no illegality in exercise of discretion U/S 265-K & 561-A CrPC by the trial court and High Court respectively. No case of abuse of process of court having been made out by the accused persons. Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. 2003 SCMR 59. Zahoor & another V/S Saidul Ibrar (SC.DB) S.203 CrPC. Dismissal of a complaint U/S 203 does not bar the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record, or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or it being manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts had been adduced which could not, with reasonable deligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. Where, however, a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, giving another opportunity to him or any other person for having his complaint enquired into, cannot be in the interest of justice. COMPLAINT RESTORED 2009 MLD 544. Nazim V/S Imtiaz & Others (Lahore) S.200 CrPC. S.302/324/337-F(vi)/337-L(ii)/337-F(v)/337-F(iii)/449/148/149 PPC. Petitioner had called in question order passed by the trial court wherein the private complaint filed by him was dismissed. Petitioner was one of accused in case about which FIR was registered at Police Station concerned. Three persons were murdered in the occurrence. Cross-version on the application of the petitioner was recorded. Petitioner was challaned in the said case, while his cross-version was found false. Statements of the petitioner and his witnesses in private complaint were recorded but the trial court dismissed the same. Cross-version of the petitioner was recorded and accused nominated in said cross-version were found innocent and were placed in Column No.2 of the challan, who were summoned by the trial court and even charge was framed. Ground for filing the private complaint was that accused of the cross-version had been found innocent. Said ground was not available because his version in writing was already on record----Validity----Accused of the cross-version were already on record with specific role. Material reelevant to the case could have also been produced in prescribed manner and opinion of the police could not have affected the merits of the case as the court had to arrive at its own conclusion. Report to restart the matter of filing afresh prviate complaint would definitely result in delay and hamper the course of trial. No illegality having been pointed out in this behalf impugned order could not be said to have been passed arbirarily, calling for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. PETITIONER DISMISSED.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:06:28 +0000