2009 PLP 544 (MLD)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Through this criminal revision, the petitioner has called in question the impugned order, dated 17-11-2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein the private complaint under sections 302/324/337-A(vi)/337-L(ii)/337-F(v)/337-F(iii)/449/148/149, P.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No. 254 of 2005, dated 11-5-2005 for offences under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Lundiawala. In the occurrence three persons were murdered. The cross-version On the application of the petitioner was established. The petitioner was challaned while his cross-version was found false. The police submitted two challans in which the charge has been framed. The petitioner claims that he remained in jail and was released on bail on 24-7-2006, which was the cause of delay in filing the private complaint. The statements of the petitioner and his witnesses in private complaint were recorded but the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same for reasons. Hence this criminal revision.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that accused of the cross-version were found innocent. The Investigating Officer if is examined in the already submitted challan in which the accused of cross-version had been summoned would affect the fate of the case. Learned counsel pointed out that in the cross-version case, already recorded on the application of the petitioner-accused who were found innocent by the police, have been summoned by the Court. In the view of the learned counsel, the ground of delay in lodging the private complaint was not available as the period is not fatal for filing the private complaint even after many years. The learned trial Court was bound to summon the accused person on the basis of preliminary evidence recorded. Reliance is placed on 1990 PCr.LJ 713 Lahore, 1984 PCr.LJ 1266 Karachi and 1995 PCr.LJ 1900 Lahore.

3. Heard.

4. There is no denial of the fact that already cross-version was recorded on the application of the petitioner in which the nominated accused were found innocent and were placed in Column No.2 of the challan who have been summoned by the trial Court and even charge has been framed. Although the delay may not be invariably fatal for lodging the private complaint but the cross-version is already available which was recorded on his application. The ground for filling the private complaint is that the accused of the cross-version had been found innocent, therefore, the Investigating Officer would oppose the case of the petitioner while appearing as witness. The ground is not available because his version in writing is already on record. The Court in order to arrive at a right decision may on its own or on application of the parties, summon any person as a witness if deemed necessary and the complainant has a right of cross-examination. In the case in hand the accused of the cross-version are already on record with specific role. The material relevant to the case could also been produced in prescribed manner and opinion of the police shall not affect the merits of the case, as the Court has to arrive at its own conclusion. The request to restart the matter by filing afresh private complaint would definitely result in delay and hamper the course of trial. There is no illegality and the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed arbitrarily, calling for interference in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N-9/L Petition dismissed.