2017 PLP 661 (MLD)

This constitution petition has been filed against the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Rawalpindi whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that on the spy information of the petitioner Raja Ali Akbar respondent No.3 was apprehended by the police for keeping 900 grams heroin and case FIR No.08/012 was registered at P.S. ANF Rawalpindi. Respondents No.3 to 10 on getting the information about spy informer, abducted the petitioner along with his daughter on 27.02.2013 but his daughter was released afterwards. The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was released by them after getting Rs.7,30,000/- and a stamp paper. The petitioner filed application before the concerned S.H.O. but failed due to which he filed application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace on 04.06.2014. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P.No.17113/2014 which was also dismissed by this Court with an observation that the petitioner may file a private complaint. The petitioner moved Civil Petition No.2085/2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 06.11.2014 with the observation that the petitioner may avail remedy of direct complaint before proper forum. On 24.11.2014, the petitioner filed private complainant before respondent No.2 and cursory evidence was recorded but the said private complaint was dismissed to the extent of section 365-A, P.P.C. read with 7 A.T.A. 1997 with the observation that to the extent of other sections the petitioner may file another private complaint before the court of ordinary jurisdiction. Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is self-contradictory and suffers from material irregularity; that the learned trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it; that no dispute of money was pending between the parties; that the observation of the learned trial court does not find support from the record; that there was sufficient material available on the record to proceed with the trial; that the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned A.A.G. has opposed this petition on the ground that the learned trial court has passed a well-reasoned order, hence the same needs no interference by this Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.A.G. and observed that the impugned order is self contradictory inasmuch as on the one hand it has been observed by the learned trial court that the occurrence to the extent of abduction of petitioner and receiving of ransom by the respondents from him, is not believable but at the same time it has been observed that the petitioner may file another private complaint to the extent of other offence before the court of ordinary jurisdiction. During cursory evidence Muhammad Iqbal petitioner, himself appeared before the trial court and also produced Muhammad Yousaf, Mst. Saima, daughter of petitioner namely Qurat-ul-Ain. The petitioner also produced documentary evidence in support of the private complaint but the said evidence was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while dismissing the private complaint. After going through the statements of the said witnesses and the documents attached with the private complaint we have reached to the conclusion that serious allegations were leveled against the respondents by all the witnesses and there was sufficient material available on the record to proceed with the trial. It is settled law that principle of appreciation of evidence at preliminary inquiry with the yardstick of Trial Court is not the purpose under section 202, Cr.P.C. Court has only to see if prima facie case is made out or not that is why full dress rehearsal of trial is not possible. See Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan and another (2010 SCMR 105). The learned trial court erred in law while dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner.

5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.06.2015 is set aside and learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.1, is directed to proceed with the trial. ZC/M-51/L Petition allowed.