1994 PLP 1137 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑A direct complaint for the theft of articles was filed by the petitioner. It was pending in the Court of Section 30 Magistrate. On 30‑9‑1992 the petitioner moved an application that he does not want to prosecute his complaint as the same is pending for disposal for about six years. The learned Magistrate accepted the application and dismissed the complaint. It has been observed in the order that the case was ripe for arguments, but in view of the application submitted by the petitioner the order was passed. This order was challenged before the High Court through Crl. Misc. Petition No.597‑M/92, which was dismissed on the ground that instead of moving an application for acceleration of the proceedings pending before the trial Court he withdrew the complaint under protest. The case was ripe for the arguments but the petitioner himself withdrew the complaint, therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly held that there was no alternative with him but to dismiss the same. While dismissing the petition the learned Single Judge made an observation that the petitioner, if so feels, may approach the learned trial Court for the redress of his grievance. The petitioner again moved the learned Magistrate for revival of his complaint but this application was rejected on 14‑11‑1992, on the ground that the Court had no such power to revive the complaint, which was dismissed on the request of the petitioner himself. The petitioner challenged this order in a Constitution petition before the High Court. The learned High Court also dismissed the Constitution petition on the ground that the complaint was withdrawn by the petitioner himself and this was a voluntary act on his part. He challenged this order in I.CA.No.5/93, but subsequently he withdrew the same on 15‑2‑1993. Now the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders.

2. The petitioner has been heard in person. He has submitted that under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused could only be acquitted and, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have proceeded with the case in spite of the fact that the petitioner did not want to prosecute the case. As the petitioner by his conscious application of mind withdrew the application, the learned Magistrate had no option but to pass the impugned order. No point of law of public importance is required to be determined in this petition. No illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate. There is no substance in this petition. The same is dismissed and the leave refused. AA./M‑1878/S Leave refused.