2017 PLP 393 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under sections 435/ 439, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has called in question order dated 14.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal through which he has summoned the petitioner in private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 summoned to face trial.

2. Before proceedings further into the matter it has been noticed by this Court that the criminal case in hand has been originated in the year 2009 and impugned order has been passed in the year 2012 whereas this revision petition is languishing in this Court since 07.04.2012 and operation of the impugned order to the extent of the petitioner has been suspended by this Court on 19.04.2012. In the backdrop of such circumstances I am not inclined to adjourn this matter any further rather I am disposing of this petition with the able assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

3. After hearing learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the impugned order dated 14.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal as well as after going through the documents appended with this revision petition it has been noticed by this Court that respondent No. 2 is complainant of private complaint whereas the petitioner is an accused person therein. Initially the complainant had lodged FIR No. 300/09, dated 09.07.2009 at Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Bahauddin in respect of offences under sections 302/ 324/109/148/149, P.P.C. wherein the petitioner's name had not figured in any capacity whatsoever. It has also been noticed that the petitioner belonging to accused party and is resident of the same locality where both accused party as well as complainant party were residing. The petitioner, accused party and the complainant party are related to each other and according to the motive part of the FIR as well as Private Complaint one Muhammad Ali, maternal uncle of Amjad Ali had been murdered by complainant party and the present incident has taken place in the backdrop of previous enmity but later on with a delay of two and a half years the complainant had filed private complaint. So, in this eventuality why the complainant/respondent No. 2 has kept mum for such a long period and has not involved the petitioner in criminal case for more than two and a half years is a fact which cast serious doubt with regard to culpability of the petitioner. The trial in State case was in progress wherein charge was already framed and case was fixed for evidence when private complaint has been instituted by the complainant/respondent No. 2 wherein he has mentioned the petitioner as an unknown person who made aerial firing at the spot. Admittedly only aerial firing has been attributed to the petitioner but the fact remains that none of the witnesses including the complainant has alleged that any empty was secured by the police from the place where the petitioner was shown to have been firing along with one unknown person. It may not be out of place to point out here that involvement of the petitioner at this belated stage smacks mala fide on the part of respondent No. 2/complainant. I may observe here that it is the duty of the courts to save innocent persons from the rigors of trial which will take years to conclude. The Courts of law have to see whether the material placed on record is confidence inspiring to set the criminal law into motion against an accused or the object of complainant is otherwise. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others (2010 SCMR 1816) wherein it has been observed as under:- "It is duty and obligation of the trial Court to scrutinize the contents of the complaint, nature of allegation made therein supporting material in support of accusation, the object intended to be achieved, the possibility of victimization and harassment, if any, to ensure itself that no innocent person against whom allegations are leveled should suffer the ordeal of protracted time consuming and cumbersome process of law."

4. For what has been discussed above, this revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 14.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal to the extent of the petitioner is hereby set aside.

5. Before parting with this order it is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are just confined to the disposal of this revision petition to the extend to the petitioner and the same will not cause prejudice to the learned trial court at the time of trial with regard to remaining accused. HBT/G-14/L Petition allowed.