2016 P Cr (PLP)

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 435 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. against an order dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Okara whereby the proceedings in the complaint case filed by Nazir Ahmad and another complaint of Muhammad Amin were directed to proceed simultaneously and side by side.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Nazir Ahmad had lodged an FIR No.344 dated 2.7.2011 under sections 302, 338 and 34, P.P.C. with police station Gogera wherein he has reported about the murder of his daughter Mst. Sadia Bibi as well as the murder of Mst. Nabeela Bibi daughter of Muhammad Amin. Haris and Kamran were held accused in the FIR. During the investigations of the State case, Haris accused was declared by the police innocent which led to the institution of private complaint by Nazir Ahmad. The improvement 'which Nazir Ahmad made in his private complaint was that he has also implicated Abdul Majeed, the father of Kamran and Haris, under the charge of abetting the double murder. The learned trial court started proceedings in the private complaint and after framing the charge upon the accused, proceeded to record the evidence. Muhammad Amin father of Mst. Nabeela Bibi one of the deceased of FIR No.344/2011 then jumped into the field and also filed a private complaint with the same set of accused persons and with the same occurrence which has already been mentioned in the FIR as well as in the complaint filed by Nazir Ahmad. The learned court again summoned the accused mentioned in the private complaint of Muhammad Amin and started the trial. In this manner, two complaints one filed by Nazir Ahmad and another filed by Muhammad Amin regarding the same occurrence and same set of accused persons were started to be tried separately.

3. The learned counsel pointed out this illegality and submitted that since both the complaints relate to one and the same occurrence in which the same set of accused is involved, therefore, instead of conducting trial separately in both the complaints, they may be consolidated and tried accordingly. In this connection, learned counsel has cited various judgments of this court as well as the august Supreme Court.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted that proceedings in private complaint subsequently filed, may be stayed instead of consolidating the complaints.

5. Parties heard. Record perused.

6. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not related to the point involved in this case as in those cases, the State case as well as the private complaint were considered for the purpose of consolidation but in the case in hand, the question is whether two private complaints having same set of the accused and evidence can be consolidated or not. There is no cavil to the proposition that there are two private complaints pending in the trial court regarding the same occurrence having same set of accused persons and same set of witnesses. Basically, the learned trial court should have consolidated two private complaints and then to commence the trial but the court had taken different view and started the trial in both the cases separately. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings in one complaint case be stayed, if accepted, would prejudice the right of the subsequent complainant as there are chances that he may not be summoned as witness in the court by the complainant of the first complaint, so in this manner, the rights of subsequent complainant could be prejudiced seriously. In these circumstances, it appears more plausible to direct learned trial court to consolidate two private complaints and then to take further legal proceedings in accordance with law.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal revision petition is accepted and the order impugned herein is set aside. The learned trial court is directed to consolidate the private criminal complaint titled "Nazir Ahmad v. Kamran etc." as well as private criminal complaint titled "Muhammad Amin v. Haris etc." and to commence the trial therein in accordance with law. The court shall decide the case expeditiously. HBT/K-28/L Petition accepted.