2000 PLP 384 (YLR)

A case under section 337-H(ii)/ 506/148/149, P.P.C., was registered against the petitioner and others on the ground that they while variously armed including fire arms hurled threats and uttered abuses to the complainant and one Maqsood Ahmad. They also resorted to firing but the complainant and Maqsood Ahmad P. W. got shelter in a nearby tubewell room and as such, were saved. The occurrence was seen by Bashir Ahmad son of Noor Muhammad and Nazir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ali. The .case was accordingly registered and during the investigation, the petitioner and others were found guilty and sent up to face their trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Daska. The case was fixed for the framing of charge but an objection was taken from the accused side that the charge was groundless as there was no material on record to justify the framing of charge. In this respect, it was alleged that the case was totally false and did not make out any case.

2. The learned trial Magistrate considered the aforesaid objection and after hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had, collected sufficient evidence whereupon, the charge could be sustained. The prayer of the petitioner for dropping the charge was, accordingly turned down vide the impugned order, dated 7-10-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Daska.

3. A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order of the Judicial Magistrate which too was dismissed by Ch. Riaz Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska vide his detailed order, dated 31-3-1999 with the observation that the contents of the F.I.R., supported by the witnesses named therein justify the framing of charge as the petitioner alongwith others have been sent up to face the trial. After the dismissal of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition read with provisions contained in section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

4. The main ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that hurling of abuses and threats does not call for the framing of charge, as it would not constitute any offence even though there were witnesses to see the occurrence. It was also submitted that had there been any firing with some weapon as alleged in the F.I.R., there could have, been substantial damage to the complainant side but admittedly no one was injured during the occurrence. Lastly, it was contended that no weapon of offence was recovered from any of the accused and as such, the prosecution case was totally baseless and mala fide.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that there is concurrent finding of the Courts below that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify the framing of charge. In this respect, it may be pointed out that charge contains the allegations in respect of commission of offence in order to alert the accused as to what evidence he has to meet at the trial and in respect of what offences. The only requirement at the time of framing of the charge is to find out whether or not there is prima facie case worth of judicial test. In the instant case, as pointed out above, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the contents of the F.I.R., supported by the eye-witnesses and the complainant prima A facie link the petitioner and other accused with the occurrence and as such, the charge is not groundless and have decided to proceed with the trial. No exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Courts below. The writ petition is misconceived with no foundation to show that there is any misuse of the judicial process. As such, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M.A.K./M-1104/1 Petition dismissed