2008 PLP 1032 (YLR)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

In continuation of my order, dated 7-5-2004 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 22 cases were earlier pending between the parties, out of them some have been decided and some are still going on. He further submits that seven new cases have been registered by the respondent against the petitioner party. He submits that present case is counter blast to the F.I.R. No.101/01 in which respondent and his co-accused were named and were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Adds that on the same facts an application was given to the S.S.P., Sialkot and the same was marked to the I.O. who after joining the parties in investigation, came to the conclusion that this was false application and he recommended that a Kalandrah under section 182, Cr.P.C. be sent to the Court against the respondent.

2. Learned Additional. A-G. on the other hand submits that order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in the revision petition, is not a, speaking order but is a general type of order. Learned Additional A-G. submits that present complaint seems to be a counterblast as parties are locked in litigation.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after recording the preliminary evidence the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie a case against the petitioner is made out so the petitioner was summoned and the petitioner against summoning order filed a revision petition which was dismissed. He submits that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as held by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that it is a prerogative of the learned trial Court to decide the case on merits after recording the evidence and that writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is very unfortunate matter in which parties are locked in litigation and 22 cases of civil as well as criminal nature were pending between the parties, some of them have been decided. While 7 more cases have been initiated by the respondent against the present petitioner. It seems that as the present respondent and his co-accused were acquitted in F.I.R. No.101/2001 so in order to take the revenge the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned Additional A-G. is right in submitting that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not a speaking order and he has rightly not supported the respondent.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the present writ petition is outcome of previous litigation and counterblast to the F.I.R. which was registered by the present petitioner against the respondent in which he and his co-accused were acquitted. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the complaint pending before the learned trial Court is hereby quashed. N.H.Q./M-536/L Petition accepted.