1998 P Cr (PLP)

2. Brief facts of the instant petition are that a case F.I.R. No. 140 of 1993 under section 452, P.P.C. was registered on 25-8-1993 at Police Station Sabz Peer, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot upon the instant of one Honourary Captain (retired) Bashir Hussain against the petitioner and others.

3. According to the contention of the petitioner this case was interrogated and a cancellation report was presented to the Court of competent Magistrate which was refused and sent back to the Legal Branch and again a cancellation report was submitted for the second time but this was also returned and uptill now no challan was submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate.

4. The complainant filed an application for presentation of challan in the Court of Mr. Zafar Sultan, learned Civil Judge with powers of Illaqa Magistrate. On this very application which was filed on 18-6-1996, the learned Magistrate assumed jurisdiction and on 24-6-1996 summoned the Inspector, Legal and the accused for 21-7-1996 which cognizance of the matter is completely without lawful authority and jurisdiction since the challan uptill now is not submitted to the Court and the learned Court cannot consider the application filed by the complainant as a report under section 173, Cr.P.C: and proceed with the case.

5. Learned A.A.-G. on Court call is present and per record produced by the Police Officer present in Court and on instructions, has submitted to this Court that only cancellation report was forwarded to the Court and the challan uptill now is not submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. He has however, contended that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order being a revisable order could be challenged under section

435. Cr.P.C. before the revisional Court and is being the adequate remedy the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

6. So far as the jurisdiction point is concerned, this Court is possessed with inherent power of section 561-A of Cr.P.C. to give effect to any order in this Court and to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. dealt with the jurisdiction of criminal Courts of inquiries and trials.' Section 190 of Cr.P.C. deals with the cognizance of offence by. the Magistrates-- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed. "

7. In the instant case only an application was filed by the complainant to summon the challan. It is surprising that on that application it is written and in the interim order, dated 24-6-1996 the learned Magistrate has recorded:-- Learned A.A.-G. present in Court per instructions has admitted that the challan was never submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction nor it was registered in the Registry of the Sessions Court. It is still not known who wrote that the challan has been submitted. The learned Presiding Officer without verifying whether the challan was available with the Court or not took cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused for 21-7-1996 while the actual fact is that the Investigating Agency forwarded cancellation report of the case, which was not agreed upon by the learned Magistrate.

8. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 24-6-1996 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside being passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction. N.H.Q./S-I 117/L. Petition allowed.