2006 PLP 2948 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh whereby while accepting the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 all the accused nominated in the F.I.R. were directed to be summoned whereas through the original order dated 12-6-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muzaffargarh only process was issued against the three persons namely Assalat, Humayun and Ghulam Abbas to face the trial in the complaint filed by respondent No.1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a complainant in case F.I.R. No.393 dated 18-12-2002 registered under sections 337-F(i)/337-F(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Muzaffargarh wherein cross-version was got recorded by respondent No.1 who is one of the accused in the said F.I.R. that the two persons from the side of respondent No.1 also received injuries at the hands of 12 persons named in the private complaint. The police had not found the same as correct whereupon respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the said 12 persons and after recording preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate only summoned three persons to face the trial, who were specifically attributed role while the private complaint was dismissed to the extent of remaining accused vide order dated 12-6-2004. Against the said order respondent No.1 filed a revision petition which has been accepted through the impugned order dated 24-11-2004 and all A the twelve accused have been directed to face the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the private complaint has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive as a counter-blast of the case got registered by the petitioner in which four persons including three women were injured by respondent No.1 and his companions. It is further contended that the petitioner also moved an application for constitution of the Medical Board and the medico-legal report of the said injured have been found incorrect while declaring the injuries self-suffered. It is also contended that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner and the other co-accused who have been illegally summoned to face the trial, hence by setting aside the impugned orders the private complaint may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned orders as well as the documents attached with this petition including the preliminary evidence. At the preliminary stage the statement of Akhtar Hayat was recorded as P.W.1 who is the complainant and P.W.2 Umar Hayat and P.W.3 Safdar Salamat injured also appeared in the witness-box and prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the co-accused but the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that they were fully implicated by the P.Ws. in their statements and they remained consistant regarding the role attributed to them in the private complaint. It is settled principle of law that at the initial stage of the summoning of the accused the learned trial Court cannot go into deeper merits of the case but has to form an opinion from the tentative C assessment of the evidence that whether prima facie case is made out or not. The Revisional Court has made correct decision by summoning all the accused on the basis of evidence on record as at this stage there were no distinguishable features in between D the accused persons fully implicated by the P.Ws.

5. So far as the contention that the Medical Board has declared the injuries self-suffered is concerned, suffice it to say that this matter was not before the learned trial Court at the initial stage of summoning the accused and they can put their case before the learned trial Court by submitting an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Court can decide the case in either way after appreciating the version of both the parties but no interference can be made by this Court in writ jurisdiction the- scope of which is confined to see that whether the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction or the same was against the settled principles of law or it was result of some material illegality. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction was equally competent to adjudicate upon the matter and l could differ with the opinion of the learned trial Court for issuance of process to the accused persons.

6. In the above circumstances no ground is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction and this petition having no merit is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./R-156/L Petition dismissed.