2024 PLP 1005 (MLD)

Criminal Revision No.57/2023, Brefet of merit fails. Syed Shahid Bahar, J.

The titled revision petition / appeal has been directed against the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotli, whereby, complaint filed by the non-petitioner No.1 (Mujtaba Rehman) has been declared as maintainable by the said Court and further proceedings in the case has been initiated.

2. Brief facts forming background of the instant revision / appeal are that Mujtaba Rehman filed complaint under Section 203-E, Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 492 B-C, APC, against the accused-petitioner and other before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotli, wherein it has been prayed that the proceedings under law may be initiated against the accused-persons and they may be punished in accordance with law. Upon filing of the complaint, objections have been filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner etc. through their counsel before the said Court, in which the accused/petitioner and other co-accused alleged that the said complaint is baseless, fictitious, against the law and facts and against the procedure, thus, the same may be dismissed. During proceedings to judge the claim of the plaintiff the learned court below also inquired the matter through SHO Police Station Kotli, the report of inquiry of the said police officer shown that some part of ladders/steps have been damaged/demolished. The said Court after perusal of report of SHO and keeping in view the stance taken in tile application/complaint declared that the prima-facie the case of the complainant is arguable and maintainable and proceedings have been initiated against the accused-petitioner etc. through the impugned order dated 10.10.2023, hence, instant revision petition/appeal.

3. Sheikh Noman Akhtar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 of the court below/trial court is against the law and facts anc is liable to be recalled. He vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has failed to take into account this legal aspect of the case that the land in dispute is under the lawful possession of the appellant and proforma-respondents, moreover, the real-respondents have also filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C for the registration of criminal case under Section 447 APC which stand dismissed vide judgment dated 16.06.2022 where against the real-respondent availed a further remedy before this Court which is still pending for adjudication, so, in such eventuality the real-respondent is barred under the law to avail subsequent remedy under the same law, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. He forcefully contended that the trial Court has failed to account this legal aspect of the case that the contents of the inquiry report clearly reveals that the dispute amongst the parties is relating to an easement right but the law dealing with such complaint is to curb the situation likewise grabbing or occupying the land itself. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 may be set-aside and the complaint filed by the real respondent may be dismissed/rejected.

4. On the other hand, Ch. Nasir Masood the learned counsel for the real-respondent contended that the learned trial Court has passed the order in accordance with law, which needs no interference by this Court. He defended the impugned, order on all counts and prayed for dismissal of the instant petition/appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.

6. At the outset preliminary inquiry report reveals as infra:-

7. Demolishing of 2 steps or stairs is oozing from record by one Ejaz Miran, petitioner.

8. Thus, prima-facie case itself is flooting from the surface of record constituting sufficient ground to issue process in furtherance of the Complaint. Discarding Complaint in presence of sufficient grounds is not warranted by law and is against the doctrine of Dispensation of Criminal Justice. No illegality or perversity is found in the order impugned. (underlining is mine)

9. Application qua registration of FIR has already stood rejected by the justice of Peace, although said order is yet impugned before this Court but in this state of affairs by dislodging the complaint amounts to non-suit and make armless the complainant, that too when domestic probe ex-facie strengthen the stance of the complainant/respondent.

10. It may be stated here that where trial Court admitted the complaint and issued bailable warrants against accused persons, accused persons have ample opportunity to move an application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C in case they feel that there is no possibility of conviction in the matter, even if the evidence purposed to be produced in Court is so produce.

11. Admitting a complaint and issuance of process under Section 204, Cr.P.C is subject to having sufficient ground for proceeding, meaning thereby that presence of facts or evidence prima-facie constituting an offence to enable the Court to issue process.

12. Process within contemplation for section 204 Cr.P.C can be issued upon existence of sufficient grounds to be contemplated on basis of cursory evidence, formation of opinion by Court does not require full dress rehearsal nor anticipated failure of case of complainant would stand an impediment.

13. Process is issued on the basis of prima-facie analysis. Prima-facie case only means that there is ground for proceedings, it is not the same thing as proof which comes later when the trial court has to find whether accused is guilty or not guilty.

14. So far as the objection raised by the complainant regarding maintainability of the lis is concerned same is repelled. As words appeal/revision are clearly written in the title of the memo of lis as well as in prayer clause, thus, lis has rightly been taken up as criminal revision. Albeit it is not appropriate to insert simultaneously the word like appeal/revision or vice versa. Appeal and revision are statutory remedies and having their own pedestal and grounds of Attack. It is also against the norms of law of pleadings, this practice is deprecated and should be avoided. On the above multiple reasons, finding no force in the instant revision petition, hence, same is dismissed. File shall be kept in archive. MQ/1/HC(AJ&K) Revision dismisse