2002 PLP 1461 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 21‑12‑1996, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.Q/52 and 53 of 1996.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Hidayatullah filed a complaint under sections 499/500, P.P.C. against petitioner Mirza Ali in the Court of Magistrate, Police Station East Cantt., Peshawar, on the ground that the petitioner had made baseless application before the Chief Minister, N.‑W.F.P. on which inquiry was ordered. The Anti‑Corruption Department as well as Departmental Authorities conducted inquiries and ultimately respondent No.2 was exonerated of all the charges. On account of frivolous complaint of the petitioner and the inquiries which continued for two years respondent No.2 suffered damage to his reputation and defamation to his family. During the trial, petitioner submitted an application on 31‑7‑1994 raising objection that the Court of Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Arguments on the application were heard and City Magistrate, Peshawar, vide order dated 30‑10‑1994 accepted the application holding that the Court at Peshawar had no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint and as such the complaint was returned to the complainant with the direction to file the same before the proper Court at D. I. Khan.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Hidayatullah Khan respondent filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Peshawar, who vide order dated 22‑4‑1996, allowed the same and remanded the complaint back to the Illaqa Magistrate with the direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

4. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order through a petition, which was dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 21‑12‑1996. Hence, this petition.

5. Mir Adam Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that when an offence was committed under sections 499/500, P.P.C. and an application was also tiled at D.I.Khan, the Courts at D.I.Khan has got the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence; that it was not a continuing offence; that the final order of the Court exonerating respondent No.2 from the allegation at Peshawar legally did not empower the Court of Peshawar to take cognizance of the offence as it lacked jurisdiction; that the impugned judgment is not sustainable.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely examined the record. Admittedly, during the trial the petitioner moved an application on 31‑7‑1994 and after hearing the parties the City Magistrate, Peshawar, vide order dated 30‑10‑1994 allowed the application holding that the Court at Peshawar has no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint, therefore, the complaint was returned to the complainant with the direction to file the same before the proper Court at D.I. Khan. Section 179, Cr.P.C. provides as follows:‑‑ "that when a person is accused of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued." In view of the above provision, the application levelling allegations against respondent No.2 was stated to be handed over to the Advisor of the Chief Minister at D.I. Khan, but all the necessary steps thereupon were taken at Peshawar.' Moreover, order of appointment of Inquiry Officer by the Authorised Officer was also issued from Peshawar and the final order exonerating respondent No.2 from the allegations made against him was also passed at Peshawar.

7. In our considered view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is entirely in consonance with the settled principles of law and the provision of the statute as mentioned hereinabove.

8. We do not find any misreading. or non‑reading of evidence or misconstruction of law in the impugned judgment. Moreover, question of public importance is not involved in this case.

9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.B.A./A‑252/S Petition dismissed.