2017 PLP 57 (YLRN)

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

One Ghulam Fatima a young lady of age had contracted marriage with one Muhammad Hussain of her free will and volition, nonetheless, without family approval. She was done to death on 10.11.2013 allegedly by her brother Tanveer Hussain and a case vide FIR No. 395, dated 10.11.2013 with Police Station Phalia was registered at the instance of her father Shabbir Hussain wherein Tanveer Hussain was nominated as sole accused responsible for her murder. Muhammad Hussain husband of the Ghulam Fatima deceased was not satisfied with the case registered at the instance of Shabbir Hussain and through the intervention of this Court got a case registered vide FIR No.119 dated 05.04.2014 at the same police station wherein he nominated as many as 6 accused on the charge of committing Qatl-e-Amd of his wife. Both FIRs related to the same incident albeit with two different versions. As a result of investigation in both the cases, Tanveer Hussain was held responsible for the murder and unanimously sent to face trial. It was in this back drop that Irshad Ullah petitioner, another brother of Ghulam Fatima deceased filed a private complaint on 25.08.2014 introducing a third story that implicated a third set of as many as 5 accused. Learned Addl: Sessions Judge at Phalia after recording cursory statement of Irshad Ullah petitioner referred the matter to the learned Area Magistrate for an inquiry who returned a negative report on the basis whereof, learned Addl: Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.12.2014 dismissed the private complaint; the appellant has challenged the vires of order dated 08.12.2014 through this revision petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.

3. Occurrence in this case took place on 10.11.2013 and was reported by no other than the real father of the Ghulam Fatima deceased and a different version was introduced by her better half. Both versions were investigated on the basis of independent First Information Reports and transmitted to the Court for adjudication. It was rather late in the day, when on 25.08.2014 the petitioner came up with a third story; his silence for so long a period is intriguingly mischievous; entire exercise by the petitioner appears to be designed to further confuse the events leading to the homicidal death of Ghulam Fatima deceased with the obvious purpose of benefiting the accused facing the charge.

4. Prosecution through a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is intended to provide an independent mechanism to seek justice in criminal dispensation in situations, where an aggrieved person may find himself genuinely handicapped under a bona fide belief that his case is not being prosecuted well by the State. These provisions cannot be pressed into service as a subterfuge to subvert the ends of justice. Even otherwise, process in a private complaint is not to be issued in routine as existence of sufficient grounds for issuance of process is sine qua non for the same. Expression "sufficient grounds for proceeding" occurring in Section 204, Cr.P.C. is an expression of higher import than mere accusation and must be rooted into some evidential basis tangibly justifying summoning of an accused. It is not allegation alone on the basis of whereof someone is to be sent for to face the rigors of criminal prosecution; a person summoned to face criminal trial is a person half condemned. Issuance of process must not be allowed to be used as an instrument of mischief. On overall analysis of the private complaint, cursory evidence in support thereto, report of inquiry Magistrate, allied proceedings and the impugned order, I have not been able to find out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. Consequently, the instant Crl. Revision is dismissed. HBT/I-16/L Petition dismissed.