2002 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Petitioner. Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 4-7-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and order, dated 17-9-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot in revision petition and prays for setting aside of both the orders.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a private, complaint against 11 private respondents and the allegation against the said respondents is that they while armed with fire-arms have fired indiscriminately. However, nobody had received the injuries during the occurrence. After the recording of the preliminary evidence all the accused have been summoned in the private complaint. Respondents Nos.5, 9, 10, 11 and 13 moved an application under section 540-A, Cr.P.C. for the dispensation of their personal appearance on each and every date of hearing which has been accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order, dated 4-7-2001. Feeling aggrieved of the said order the petitioner filed a revision petition which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order, dated 17-9-2001.

3. Learned counsel contends that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is a non-speaking order and the details of the medical certificates produced by the respondents have not been given. The charge was framed and when the charge was framed the application for dispensing with the personal appearance cannot be allowed. He further contends that the learned Magistrate has failed to show sufficient cause for accepting the application. It is also contended that respondent No.5 has gone to America after the acceptance of the application. He further contends that both the orders are illegal and unlawful and have been passed in an arbitrarily manner and arc liable to be set aide.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the orders and even the complaint filed by the petitioner. The only allegation levelled in the complaint is that ineffective firing has been made by the private respondents and on the basis of preliminary evidence all the persons of the family have been issued notices to appear and to face the trial. Respondents Nos.5, 9, 10, 11 and 13 moved an application for dispensing with their personal appearance which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate for two reasons, firstly that they had succeeded in making out the sufficient cause for allowing their application and the medical certificate has also been attached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and has held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a speaking order and cannot be set aside on the grounds urged by the petitioner. I have noticed that prima facie it seems that all the family members of Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Sharif etc. have been involved in the case by alleging that they had fired indiscriminately in which nobody has received the injuries. Prima facie it seems that the petitioner has widened the net in order to pressurize and tease the opponents. As the matter for the summoning of the respondent is not before me hence it will not prejudice the case of any of the parties but the Court kept in view all these circumstances. I feel the acceptance of the application of respondents Nos.5, 9, 10, 11 and 13 for dispensing with their personal attendance has caused no miscarriage of justice at least to the petitioner and the trial Court has exercised its discretionary powers judiciously. The order passed in the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also a speaking order and cogent reasons have been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below. I find that the petitioner for the redressal of personal grievance wants the appearance of each and every accused on each and every date which cannot be allowed. If any of the person has a genuine case, the Courts can allow the application for dispensing with the personal attendance of a person and if the Courts exercised its powers it is not challengeable through a writ petition as the orders have not been r passed without jurisdiction.

5. For the foregoing reasons this petition has no merits and is dismissed. H.B.T./M-821/L Petition dismissed.