1985 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 325/148/149‑‑Inherent jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Trial Court after recording preliminary evidence dismissing private complaint‑‑Revisional Court affirming said order‑‑Material evidence not recorded by trial Court before dismissing complaint‑‑High Court finding scope for further inquiry into guilt of accused /respondents while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, set aside orders of Courts below and case remanded to trial Court for further inquiry. S.A. Rashid for Petitioner. Sana Ullah Bajwa for Respondents. Farrukh Hamayun for the State. Briefly stated the facts are that Allah Ditta petitioner got a case F.I.R. No. 233, dated 29‑5‑1983 registered at P.S. Sadar, Sialkot under sections 148 and 325/149, P.P.C. against all the respondents. During investigation the case was found to be false and in consequence was cancelled. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents. After recording preliminary evidence of the parties the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 20‑2‑1984. The petitioner then filed a revision petition which was dismissed by Rai Zafar Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Hence this petition under section 561‑A. Cr. P. C. Learned counsel contends that the learned trial Magistrate did not properly discuss the evidence led by the petitioner. He has further stated that even the learned Additional Sessions Judge did hot advert to the evidence led by the petitioner and simply dismissed the revision on the ground that no perversity or foolishness was found in the order of the learned Magistrate. It is also stated that the learned Magistrate did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his case but simply dismissed the complaint on the basis of the preliminary evidence. It is next stated that the learned Magistrate did not record the evidence of the doctor who was to depose about the injuries suffered by Mst. Irshad Bibi and whose certificate was already available on record. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Seemingly there are no material contradictions in the complaint and the statements made by the witnesses in the Court. They have given the motive as also the manner in which Irshad Begum was injured. The learned Magistrate has failed to properly consider the preliminary evidence led by the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had also adopted the arguments of the learned Magistrate and did not give any independent finding on the evidence led by the petitioner. He failed to see if there had been proper appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court by simply disposed of the revision on extraneous matters not existing on the record. The petitioner should have been given a fair chance to prove his case. The doctor who medically examined Irshad Begum was a very material witness and his evidence should have been recorded before dismissing the complaint. In view of the above circumstances, I think that there is a scope for further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Accordingly, I accept the petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the case for further enquiry. The trial Court is directed to afford full opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his complaint and decide the matter afresh in the light of evidence led by him. Needless to say that he will not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 30‑4‑1985. H. A. K. Case remanded.