1998 P Cr (PLP)

2. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum passed in revision petition is challenged on the ground that it was perverse and amounted to the abuse of the process of Court. In this regard, it was contended that the learned Revisional Court did not evaluate the evidence brought on record and also failed to appreciate the law on the point; that the complaint in question was fled with ulterior motive, mala fide intention and as a counter-blast to the case registered against the respondent namely Muhammad Akram and others; that all Parda observing ladies of the family of the petitioner were named in that complaint in order to humiliate all the members of the family of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts are that the respondent namely Muhammad Akram filed a complaint under section 337-F(ii) read with section 148/149, P.P.C. for an occurrence which took place at 10-00 a.m. on 17-2-1997 in which he and his wife were injured. A report was lodged at Police Station Dina, District Jhelum for the registration of the case. It was entertained in the daily diary of the police station at Serial No. 15 on the same day but no formal F.I.R. was registered by tile police although efforts were made upto the level of S.S.P., Jhelum but without any effect. The respondent, thereupon, filed the instant complaint and produced the medico-legal report regarding his injuries and also examined three witnesses to support the occurrence, narrated in the complaint.

4. The learned trial Magistrate however, dismissed the complaint after taking into account the medico-legal report and the opinion given by the Investigating Officer that 1he injuries on the person of the respondent i.e.; the complainant were self-suffered.

5. The learned Revisional Court while setting aside the impugned order observed that the learned Magistrate did not take into account the statements of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Akrattt complainant (P.W.1), Muhammad Afzal (P.W.2) and Muhammad Hayat (P.W.3). Their evidence was least considered or evaluated while dismissing the complaint by putting implicit reliance on the opinion of the police and the Medical Officer that the injuries were self-suffered. Since no reasons were given by the learned trial Magistrate to discard the preliminary evidence examined in the complaint, therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, the complaint was sent back to the learned Judicial Magistrate for passing fresh order after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and law. In this respect, the following observation of the learned Revisional Court would be relevant:-- "It may find a mention here that a judicial order must always contain the brief facts, questions in controversy between the parties and the decision between the parties and the decision thereon alongwith the brief reasons and if some evidence is recorded, the same has to be believed or disbelieved for the reasons to be recorded. The impugned order lacks all such necessary ingredients. It is, therefore, that the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside ...."

6. There is no denying of the fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint in a slip shod manner and did not say a word regarding the evidence of the eye-witnesses who had supported the contents of the complaint. Even the learned Judicial Magistrate had observed in paragraph No. 3 of his order in the following manner:-- "All the three witnesses namely Muhammad Akram P.W. 1, Muhammad Afza1.P.W.2 and Muhammad Hayat P.W.3 have supported the contents of the complaint during their statements.

7. In the above situation, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to advance the reasons to disbelieve those witnesses qua ipse dixit of police and the opinion of the Medical Officer regarding the injuries found on the person of the injured persons. The learned Revisional Court was, therefore, within its right to disagree with the view taken by the learned trial Court in dismissing the complaint. The Revisional Court has, therefore, not committed any irregularity or patent illegality so as to attract the provisions contained in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Civil Miscellaneous No.785/M of 1997

8. Disposed of with the disposal of the main petition. N.H.Q./H-39/L Petition dismissed.