2001 P Cr (PLP)

The applicants are facing trial in direct Complaint Case No.98 o 1998 Re: Saleem Shah v. Jumo and others under sections 147, 148, 149 447, 506(ii) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. pending trial in the Court of learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Ubauro. The facts in brief are that the incident of this case had occurred on 8-5-1986 at 8-00 a.m. in the field of complainant Saleem Shah. The allegations as levelled by the complainant are that 9 accused armed with lethal weapons forcibly trespassed in the lands of complainant and started ploughing his land. It is stated in the F.I.R. that fire-arms were pointed out to complainant as well as to P. W. Fateh Ali Shah and the accused caused fist and kicks blows. The F.I.R. was recorded as Crime No.86 of 1986 at Police Station Daharki on 1-7-1986. The investigation was conducted and ultimately the F.I.R. was disposed of in B Class on 26-3-1987. Thereafter, the proceedings under sections 182 and 211, P. P. C. were initiated against complainant Saleem Shah. The complainant Saleem Shah also filed the direct complaint case in the Court of S.D.M. Mirpur Mathelo in the year 1987. The R & Ps of aforesaid complaint was subsequently misplaced from the Court, however, the complainant filed criminal revision against the order passed by the trial Court whereby the direct complaint of Saleem Shah was dismissed. The said criminal revision was dismissed as withdrawn on 19-11-1997. After the lapse of about 8 months, complainant filed the present direct complaint against the applicants. Preliminary enquiry was held and consequently the direct complaint was brought on record. The applicants through this application have sought the quashment of aforesaid proceedings of direct complaint which were initiated after about 11 years of the incident. The next point which needs consideration is as to whether the proceedings under sections 182 and 211, P.P.C. whereby the cognizance was taken against the complainant Saleem Shah was warranted by law, when the revision was still pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo. The matter was heard and the R & Ps in both the cases were called to examine the legality of proceedings of both the cases. I would like to dispose of the fate of both cases by single order as the, facts involved in said cases are common and they arise out of same action. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that this is a case of no injury. The allegation in regard to blows caused by kicks and fist are not supported by medical evidence. The F.I.R. of the complainant was disposed of in B Class. The present direct complaint is delayed by about 11 years and no fruitful result would come out, even if the proceedings continue. Mr. Abdul Rasheed Kalwar learned counsel for complainant Saleem Shah has contended that he has filed the direct complaint which was dismissed by S.D.M. Against the said order criminal revision was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ghotki which was later on transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo. It is argued that since the proceedings were pending, therefore, the action initiated under section 182, P.P.C. was not warranted by law. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.-G. has argued that the proceedings of both the cases are misconceived and it appears that both the proceedings pending against the applicants as well as the respondent No.2 are without lawful authority and jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal points involves in the matters, I am of the view that the present direct complaint was filed after 11 years. The injury allegedly caused by kicks and fist blows are not supported A by medical evidence. The F.I.R. was disposed of in B Class. Under such circumstances present direct complaint would not yield any fruitful result. So for the proceedings under sections 182 and 211, P.P.C. initiated against the complainant are concerned, I am of the view that since the matter was sub judice in criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, therefore, no action could be taken till the final decision of revision. I am in agreement with the submission of learned A.A.-G. Both the proceedings are of no consequence and cannot be sustained. The continuity 8 of both the cases is an abuse of process of Court and the same are not sustainable. Consequently the proceedings of direct Complaint Case No.98 of 1998, pending in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Ubauro and proceedings under sections 182 and 211, P.P.C. bearing Case No.11 of 1996, pending in the Court of S.D.M., Mirpur Mathelo are hereby quashed. N. H. Q./J-16/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.