"چالان کیس" اور پرائیویٹ استغاثہ" کی سماعت کا طریقہ کار

 Trial of "Challan" and "Complaint" case.

The procedure outlined in the Nur Elahi case (PLD 1966 SC 708) is generally recommended. Nevertheless, some situations may require a departure from it. These can be categorized into two distinct groups:

(a) cases where there are two prosecution versions regarding the same incident but entirely or partially different from the one reported earlier through the first information report, and

(b) cases where there are different versions of the same incident by rival parties. I take the opportunity to glean the guiding principles from the decisions rendered over time. As regards the first category, these are as follows:

i) Where the party lodging the FIR also files a private complaint containing the same allegations against the same set of accused persons, the trial court will try the complaint case first and put the challan case on hold until its decision.

ii) Whenever the facts or circumstances allow, cross-cases involving two different versions of the same incident and two distinct sets of accused must be tried together in the same court. The rationale is that if the two cases giving different accounts of the same incident are not tried concurrently, there is a considerable risk of conflicting judgements.

iii) Where the complaint case is instituted after the FIR is lodged and not only there are differences in the names of some of the accused, but at least one person mentioned in the FIR as an accused is excluded and replaced by another individual, the complaint case must be taken up first for trial as stipulated in Nur Elahi. This is particularly essential when the two sets of allegations made in the said two cases regarding the weapons used and the roles ascribed to the various accused are materially different.

iv) When the persons nominated as accused in the private complaint are the same as those named in the FIR, the trial court has the authority to summon the individuals listed in Column No. 2 of the report filed by the police under section 173 Cr.P.C. However, if the police introduce a new individual as an accused who has not been mentioned by the complainant in the private complaint, the procedure recommended in the Nur Elahi case is the most suitable approach. In simpler terms, if, during an investigation, the police include or exclude any accused in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C., but the complainant adheres to their initial version, then the proceedings in the private complaint should be prioritized and completed first, while the challan case should be put on hold as directed in Nur Elahi.

v) While a consolidated trial of challan and complaint cases is not recommended, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and High Court if such a trial did not cause a failure of justice (due to the unworthy and unreliable evidence available with prosecution), and the complainant did not object to it before the trial court.

Now, let‟s consider the second classification. If the rival parties advance different versions of the same incident through crosscases and such different versions contain different sets of accused persons, the trial of such cases is to be held simultaneously and side by side. The same court must hear and decide them to avoid conflicting judgments.

Crl. Revision-Against Interim Order-PPC
37-23
ASFAND YAR ETC. VS THE STATE ETC.
Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh
11-10-2023
2023 LHC 6074