PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 181
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 200 to 204--Private complaint--Remedy--A private complaint is a remedy available to an aggrieved person for setting law into motion and for taking cognizance of offences committed by persons complained against--Provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of Criminal Procedural Code provides different steps to be adopted/taken by Court concerned--The Court taking cognizance of offence is required to examine complainant on oath and reduce in writing a substance of his statement and if Court is satisfied regarding prima facie case for issuing process against person(s) complained against, it can, at once, issue process for his/their appearance in Court, thus, to issue process, Magistrate can proceed on basis of allegation leveled contained in written complaint alone and is required to satisfy himself. [Para 8] A
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 435 & 439, 200 to 209--Criminal revision--Private complaint--Remedy--Qatl-e-amd--The remedy of private complaint is meant to provide direct access to an aggrieved person to a Court of law for redress of his grievance--As mentioned above, complainant being widow of deceased falls within purview of aggrieved person--The allegations contained in statement are not based on mere oral assertions--The complainant as well as CWs at preliminary stage had leveled allegation of committing Qatl-i-Amd against respondents and post-mortem report of deceased coupled with medico legal reports of injured constitute a prima facie case, thus, impugned order rendered by Addl. Sessions Judge whereby private complaint was dismissed mainly for reason of belated filing of private complaint cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside--Petition allowed. [Para 8] B
Rana Asif Saeed, Mehar Irshad Ahmad Arain and Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mehmood Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
M/s. Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Ch. Muhammad Imran and Haji Tariq Aziz Khokhar, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4.
Date of hearing: 2.6.2021.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 181
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.
RUBINA SUBTAIN alias FAZEELA BIBI--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 09 of 2021, decided on 2.6.2021.
Order
The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kabirwala whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed, in limine.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents and leveled the allegation against Respondents No. 2 to 4 in para-1 of the private complaint. The petitioner herself appeared as CW.l, thereafter, the learned trial Court referred the matter to Magistrate Section 30 for the purpose of inquiry, who recorded statements of CWs 2 and 3. The petitioner also tendered into evidence Exh.PB, Exh.PC and Mark-A to Mark-C. The Enquiry Officer (Magistrate Section 30) submitted a report that the offence punishable under Section 302,148,149, PPC were made out against the respondents, however, learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the private complaint vide order dated 21.12.2020, impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at some length. The crux of the arguments was that the angle of appreciating the evidence at preliminary stage is lighter than that of full dressed trial and at this stage, only sufficient material is to be seen regarding prima facie involvement of the respondents-accused but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge travelled beyond his jurisdiction and evaluated the evidence in detail which is impermissible, thus, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this petition with vehemence and submitted that regarding the same occurrence case FIR No. 217/2019 dated 08.7.2019 under Sections 302,148, 149, PPC was registered at Police Station Koranga, Kabirwala. During trial the learned trial Court has recorded five witnesses, thus, the private complaint was rightly dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after considering the facts/ merits of the case. The petitioner nowhere agitated her claim for about fifteen months and all of sudden brought on record her own stance to extend favour to CW.2, an accused of the above mentioned case and that the impugned order was perfectly legal and unexceptional.
5. Heard. Available record perused.
6. A review of the record demonstrates that Mohsin Abbas husband of the petitioner lost his life on 08.7.2019. The incident was reported by one Murrawat Abbas by way of FIR No. 217/2019 referred to in preceding para. The complainant nominated the accused with their respective roles. At trial, five witnesses have reportedly been recorded/examined. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a private complaint against the said respondents. She was examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 10.10.2020, nominated the accused for commission of Qatl-i-Amd of her husband. She ascribed specific roles to the nominated accused and also explained the reasons to file the private complaint on 10.10.2020. As mentioned above, the matter was referred to Magistrate Section 30 Kabirwala for the purpose of enquiry, who recorded statements of CWs 2 and 3. The documentary evidence was also tendered by the complainant which suggested that Mohsin Abbas was done to death and Ghulam Raza sustained injuries. The Inquiry Report dated 26.10.2020 highlights that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 302,148,149, PPC were made out against the accused persons including Aurangzeb, Ali Abbas and Yasir. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge/trial Court dismissed the private complaint and discussed the merits of the case in paras 4 to 10 of the impugned order. The reasons which prevailed upon the learned Addl. Sessions Judge , can be summarized hereunder:--
(i) The petitioner brought no action against the accused till 03.10.2020;
(ii) The injured witness of the State case Ghulam Raza was the brother of the petitioner, though he was injured but was mentioned in column No. 3 of the report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) (Cr.P.C);
(iii) The petitioner never informed the investigating agency regarding her version and that her negligence and delay was not plausibly explained;
(iv) No limitation was provided to file a private complaint but if it is delayed then the complaint loses its truthfulness;
(v) The Area Magistrate was duty bound to scrutinize the contents of the complaint;
(vi) The basic object and purpose of inquiry conducted under Section 202, Cr.P.C. was to ensure that no innocent person should suffer ordeal of protracted trial;
(vii) He who seeks equity must come with clean hands and must be vigilant qua his rights to approach the Court well in time; and
(viii) Purpose and object of filing this private complaint after more than a year was to save some person involved in the same occurrence and were found as involved in the commission of offence during the investigation and to involve other to pressurize by introducing entirely a different story;.
7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the private complaint as it was filed after about fifteen months of the occurrence and due to conduct of the petitioner as she did not file the private complaint, meanwhile. As mentioned above, the petitioner got recorded her statement as CW.1 and mentioned the reasons to file the complaint after fifteen months. She was amongst the legal heirs of the deceased being his widow. The petitioner along-with CWs 2 and 3 have leveled the allegation of committing Qatl-i-Amd against the respondents, supported by the post-mortem report, medico legal report, copy of the FIR, Mark A and Mark B.
8. A private complaint is a remedy available to an aggrieved person for setting the law into motion and for taking cognizance of offences committed by the persons complained against. In this respect, provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of the Criminal Procedural Code provides different steps to be adopted/taken by the Court concerned. The Court taking cognizance of the offence is required to examine the complainant on oath and reduce in writing a substance of his statement and if the Court is satisfied regarding prima facie case for issuing process against the person(s) complained against, it can, at once, issue process for his/their appearance in the Court, thus, to issue process, Magistrate can proceed on the basis of allegation leveled/ contained in the written complaint alone and is required to satisfy himself. The remedy of private complaint is meant to provide direct access to an aggrieved person to a Court of law for redress of his grievance. As mentioned above, the complainant being widow of deceased falls within the purview of aggrieved person. The allegations contained in the statement are not based on mere oral assertions. The complainant as well as the CWs at preliminary stage had leveled the allegation of committing Qatl-i-Amd against the respondents and the post-mortem report of the deceased coupled with the medico legal reports of the injured constitute a prima facie case, thus, the impugned order rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereby the private complaint was dismissed mainly for the reason of belated filing of private complaint cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the matter is-remanded to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Kabirwala for further enquiry where the all concerned shall appear on 15.6.2021.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments