Private complaint

Petitioner/accused assailed notice issued by Trial Court, whereby petitioner/accused was summoned to face trial in private complaint filed by respondent/complainant

Validity

In order to constitute offence, complainant was to disclose existence of both basic ingredients namely unlawful act "actus rea" and criminal intent "mens rea" on the part of petitioner/accused

Before issuing process, the Court was under obligation to satisfy itself for the purpose of ascertaining truth or falsehood of respondent/complaint as to the existence or non-existence of sufficient grounds to issue process against petitioner/accused

Main object of dealing with examination of complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C was to protect public from false, frivolous and vexatious complaints filed against them

Trial Court could not proceed to issue process against accused until and unless, it was satisfied that prima facie case had been made out against those who were accused of alleged criminal offence

Respondent/ complainant filed complaint as counterblast, who himself was guilty of offence for which a separate criminal case had already been registered against him and after remaining unsuccessful at all forums to achieve his nefarious designs, he filed private complaint against petitioner/accused who was pressing hard since long on the basis of criminality of respondent/complainant

High Court set aside orders passed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court as the same were in sheer violation of law

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused/respondents challenged the vires of said order by filing revision petition, which was allowed by the Revisional Court

Validity

During trial of the case, accused persons would have every opportunity for cross-examining the complainant and other witnesses, bringing their oral as well as documentary version on the record and to falsify the allegations mentioned in the complaint; they would also have opportunity to produce evidence in their defence as well as appear themselves as their own witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. for disproving the allegations levelled against them

In the light of cursory statements of witnessesincluding the complainant as well as documents produced by the complainant including Medico-Legal Examination Report, Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that sufficient material was available on the record to proceed with the trial against the accused persons and they were rightly summoned to face the trial

However, said important and vital aspect was not considered by lower Revisional Court at the time of passing impugned order dated 11.10.2019

Therefore, impugned order dated 11.10.2019 passed by lower Revisional Court in the revision petition was not in accordance with law, thus was set-aside

Accused persons/now arrayed as respondents No.2 to 6 in this petition, respectively would appear before Trial Court in the light of order dated 22.02.2019 passed by Magistrate/Trial Court in the complaint for further proceedings in accordance with law

Petition was accepted, accordingly.

Petitioner / complainant was aggrieved of dismissal of her private complaint relying upon the facts narrated in FIR of the same incident

Validity

Trial Court while considering the facts of other connected cases not available in evidence of complaint case had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in such regard

Witnesses consistently narrated the occurrence that allegedly took place on 24-04-2023 and the facts given by them were supported by medico legal examination certificate, postmortem examination certificate and application moved by petitioner / complainant to the SHO concerned

Trial Court was expected to pass the order only in the light of facts narrated by the three witnesses and the evidence brought on record through the three documents produced by the petitioner / complainant which had revealed availability of evidence/grounds sufficient to require issuance of process under section 204, Cr.P.C. against respondents / proposed accused persons

High Court directed Trial Court to issue process under section 204, Cr.P.C. against respondents / proposed accused persons and to proceed with the trial in due course of law

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a private complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C., alleging that he was apprehended by officials of the FIA

Respondent claimed ownership of approximately 200 Bitcoins and alleged that during the raid FIA officials misappropriated his digital currency, seized property and documents without recovery memo, accessed his email and blockchain accounts and transferred crypto currency from his hard wallet

Allegations of custodial torture and misuse of his online credentials were also levelled

Trial Court summoned the petitioners to face the trial

Validity

In the present case, after a full inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C., the Inquiry Judge recorded the statements of two supporting witnesses, examined complainant and documentary as well as digital evidence, including blockchain records, and concluded that the allegations against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, were prima facie well-founded

From the material placed before it, the Trial Court appeared to have followed the legal steps required by Ss.200 & 202, Cr.P.C., before issuing summons

Order showed that an inquiry was first held, evidence was recorded, and only thereafter process was issued

Said facts demonstrated compliance with the statutory safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary or mechanical summoning of an accused

Revisional jurisdiction under Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C., was supervisory rather than appellate; it was exercised only to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities or material irregularities and not to reassess the sufficiency of evidence already examined by the Trial Court at the preliminary stage

Objections raised by the petitioner, such as delay in filing the private complaint, alleged contradictions between earlier statements and the complaint, or accusations of mala fide intent, were essentially factual matters

Such issues must be evaluated during the trial on the basis of evidence and cross-examination

Such considerations, by themselves, did not undermine the limited finding of prima facie sufficiency under S.202, Cr.P.C. and therefore did not provide grounds for interference at the revisional stage

For these reasons, the impugned order passed by Trial Court admitting the private complaint and summoning the petitioner, disclosed no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or perversity

Criminal revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner filed private complaint against the respondent with the contention that he levelled false allegation of zina upon her

Complaint was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Admittedly, the accusation of zina/illicit terms with "RM" against the petitioner was imputed by the respondent in divorce deed dated 07.06.2020, which he repeatedly made in the pleadings of the suits and family matters, which he also reiterated and reaffirmed in presence of the Court and in public, in union council office, and judicial/non-judicial proceedings, even after severing marital bond with the petitioner and no longer remaining her husband

This prima facie fell within the definition of Qazf and there was no question of applicability of the provisions of S.14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 regarding the li'an in this case

Trial judge very conveniently overlooked such aspects of the case and dismissed the subject complaint, being not maintainable, holding that the respondent, who was the husband of the petitioner, had made the accusation of zina/ illicit relations against the petitioner during subsistence of the marriage, therefore, the provisions of S.14 of the Qazf Ordinance, 1979, were attracted to the case of the petitioner

Petitioner had supported the contents of her complaint by cursory evidence and she had also been supported by the witnesses in their respective cursory statements recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, who after conducting preliminary enquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C, and recording the statements of petitioner's witnesses submitted his enquiry report dated 16.01.2023, in affirmative, which had also been completely ignored by the trial judge while passing the impugned order

Said material brought on the record had to be considered to determine whether a prima facie case was made out or not and no deeper appreciation was required at the initial stage

Impugned order, which was patently illegal, suffered from mis-reading and non-reading of the record and could not be sustained

Criminal revision petition was allowed and the case was remitted back to the Trial Court with the directions to pass an appropriate order based upon the consideration of the complaint and cursory evidence of the petitioner etc. in accordance with the law.

Petitioner uploaded a video on his YouTube channel, which two employees working for respondent company claimed defamed the company

Respondent company filed a private complaint against the petitioner and the Trial Court registered the complaint

Validity

If respondent company was aggrieved then why did it not act, as required under the companies legislation, to initiate criminal proceedings

No resolution passed by the company in its general body or Board of Directors was on record or was ever obtained

How did the two persons, who had filed the complaint, claim that they were aggrieved by the alleged defamation when they were in essence some unknown employees of a subsidiary, of respondent company

Why was a criminal complaint being filed in city "K", even though the law allowed the same to be filed, however it would have been more convenient for both parties to litigate in city "I"

Court should have considered the said basics, at the very least, before taking cognizance of a criminal complaint that was a challenge to the fundamental right of freedom of speech

Initiation of unnecessary litigation causes massive burden and inconvenience to the parties involved and further burdens an already struggling criminal justice system

Both the parties in their own ways had contributed extensively towards defending the right of freedom of expression and speech in the country

When persons of such profile and large admiration base come into conflict for minor, insignificant reasons, it no doubt causes a negative impact on the right of freedom of expression

It seemed that present case was more a case of conflict of egos than real criminal harm

Hopefully parties will be in a position to resolve such disputes through mediation

Complaint was vague from which it seemed that respondent company itself had given an interpretation to claim that what petitioner said was regarding them

Two unknown employees of a subsidiary company of respondent claimed to be aggrieved; respondent, itself did not initiate any complaint for defamation to it; no authorization was available from respondent to the two employees to initiate action; and most importantly the right of freedom of expression was being attacked on a flimsy ground

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to quash the proceeding arising out of the complaint filed by respondent

Proceedings were quashed accordingly.

Besides the applicants had allegedly committed the offence/robbery for which the witnesses who were examined by the Magistrate during preliminary enquiry had fully supported the version of respondent/complainant thereby it was admitted

Once the complaint was brought on record the best course for the applicants would be to proceed with the trial instead of filing interlocutory applications seeking premature acquittal

Hence, the impugned order passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

No doubt that there was no bar to file application u/s 265-K, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial even before framing of charge

Yet S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was not meant for a complaint case more particularly when the Trial Court had taken cognizance and matter before it (Trial Court) was at the verge of trial

Once the trial had commenced the best course for the applicants was to lead evidence instead of seeking premature acquittal

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court was required to investigate veracity and sufficiency of evidence, which could lead to accuracy in proof of facts and circumstances

Next step was evidence appreciation which could only be ensured by Trial Court itself through the process, proceedings and trial in accordance with relevant law and procedure

Trial Court decided the matter in haste without recording of evidence and without extending right of audience to petitioner/complainant

Federal Shariat Court set aside order passed by Trial Court, as the same suffered from illegality

High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after providing full opportunity to petitioner/complainant of hearing as well submission of evidence and production of witnesses

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Judicial Magistrate conducted inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and prepared a positive report, thus petitioners were summoned to face the trial

Validity

For issuance of process for the purpose of summoning the accused in the complaint, law only required availability of sufficient ground as provided under S. 204, Cr.P.C. and not the reasonable grounds

If the court was satisfied with the material placed before it in the shape of complaint, documents annexed with complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses, then process could be issued for summoning the accused for facing trial

In the present case, complainant filed the complaint being eye-witness of the occurrence, got recorded his cursory statement before the Trial Court and then said complaint was sent for inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. before Area Magistrate, who conducted inquiry, recorded statements of two other eye-witnesses and then submitted his inquiry report under S. 202, Cr.P.C., while clearly mentioning in the same that in his considered opinion after going through the record, all the oral as well as documentary evidence of the complainant, the offences under Ss. 302, 148 & 149, P.P.C., were made out, in the light of cursory statements of witnesses including the complainant as well as documents produced by the complainant including post-mortem report and inquiry report, sufficient ground was available on record for proceeding, therefore, Trial Court rightly found that case against the accused persons had been prima facie made out and summoned them for facing the trial

No illegality had been found in the impugned order, therefore, need no interference

Revision petition was without merits and was dismissed accordingly.

Section 193 of Cr.P.C. placed a complete and clear bar on taking of cognizance of any offence by the Court of Session in its original jurisdiction unless the case was sent up by a Magistrate under S. 190(2) of Cr.P.C.

Offence of defamation under S. 500 of the P.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment that may possibly extend to a period of 5 years and as such, was triable by a Magistrate

Legislature in its wisdom desired an expeditious trial of the offence with right of appeal going to the High Court and this appeared to be the dominant purpose for insertion of S. 502A in the P.P.C. with no bearings upon the procedure, otherwise provided for the institution of a complaint

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Complainant in his private complaint, filed application under S. 248, Cr.P.C., stating that a compromise between the parties had been effected owing to which he wanted to withdraw his private complaint and had no objection if the accused were acquitted

Complainant was allowed to withdraw the complaint and the Court acquitted the accused and his co-accused

Validity

Section 248, Cr.P.C. titled as "Trial of summons cases by Magistrates" did not apply to trials by the Court of Session which were conducted under Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C.

Order of the Trial Court was patently illegal and without jurisdiction

Criminal case could only be compounded in the manner provided in S. 345, Cr.P.C.

Offence under Ss. 302/34, P.P.C., could be compounded by the legal heirs of the deceased with the permission of the court before which the prosecution was pending

Withdrawal of private complaint was a unilateral act while composition of offence required participation of the other party

Court could not grant the permission envisaged in S. 345, Cr.P.C., in a vacuum and it had to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the compromise and the legal capacity of those who were making it

Unilateral statement of the complainant that he promised with the accused was not sufficient

In the present case, impugned order proceeded on the solitary statement of complainant

No evidence of valid compromise between the legal heirs of deceased and the accused was available

Admittedly, private complaint was still at the initial stage when the complainant withdrew it

Although charge was framed but the statement of not a single witness was recorded and unless the accused had been acquitted after regular trial the second prosecution was not barred.

Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to fine on the basis of moving false complaints and publishing pamphlets with defamatory words against the respondents

Complainant produced two witnesses including his brother in support of his claim

Record showed that Trial Court, after recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing final arguments, without assigning any reason, instead announcing order on merit, restarted the trial and issued process for evidence to the Additional Collector as court witness

Trial Court, after recording statement of court witness, recorded statement of accused under Ss.342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. second time

Accused, after second statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. had examined himself on oath and had produced documents showing character of the complainant

Record showed that Trial Court failed to appreciate that even complainant's own brother had not supported him

Trial Court misinterpreted the evidence with reference to the burden of proof in criminal cases

Record did not show that the complainant had by way of rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of counter affidavit of officials containing the allegation of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant and, therefore, it ought to have been accepted as admitted document about a truth

Trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was not aggrieved by derogatory remarks on oath against him

If such remarks did not cause any defamation to the complainant then how a letter written to any government functionary, which had not been conveyed to the complainant, would have caused any injury to the complainant

Trial Court clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- as punishment and further ordered that fine be paid to the complainant

Trial Court had no authority to handover the amount of fine to the complainant

Amount of fine imposed as punishment had to be deposited by court through its ministerial office in the government treasury

Circumstances established that complainant failed to prove his claim

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

First requirement of S. 200, Cr.P.C. is to approach the police for lodging FIR and in case of refusal by police to register the case, remedy of direct complaint can be availed.

Petitioners were police officials who were aggrieved of process issued by Trial court in a private complaint on allegation of defective investigation in a murder case

Validity

Prosecution could be initiated against police officers on basis of defective investigation on report in writing by an officer authorized in such behalf under law

Private complaint filed by complainant was not maintainable against petitioners as they were police officials

Two venues were available to complainant, firstly, if Trial Court had come to conclusion that investigating officer had interrogated matter with mala fide intention or with some ulterior motive during course of investigation then it could order for prosecution under Art. 155 of Police Order, 2002; secondly, complainant could move an application to high-ups of police department by availing remedy available under law

High Court set aside complaint filed against petitioners as same was not maintainable

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Order passed under S. 204, Cr.P.C., was not a “judgment” and could be reviewed by the Court, seized with the matter, if some incriminating material was brought on the file during trial. [Majority view]

Section 202, Cr.P.C. bestowed vast powers upon the court to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and in such respect it could direct any inquiry or investigation

Court was not bound by only the evidence of the complainant, and it could examine the police file, report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. or a JIT report, prepared in a state case (FIR) registered about the same occurrence

Court could also examine the members of JIT, investigating officer of the case or any other witness recorded during investigation of said case so that complete picture of the occurrence supported by relevant material was before him while passing an order under S. 204, Cr.P.C. (for summoning the accused).

Requisite conditions listed under S. 204, Cr.P.C. was the presence of sufficient grounds and the satisfaction of the court to be ascertained from the facts placed before it

Availability of some admissible evidence on the record was not essential before summoning the accused

For taking cognizance under S. 204, Cr.P.C. it was only prima facie case that was required and the court was not expected to go into the details by conducting a preliminary inquiry

If on the basis of material adduced by the complainant it could be said that there was prima facie evidence connecting the accused with the crime and the court was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint, it may issue process against the accused

Law did not require production of entire evidence at preliminary stage before summoning an accused person.

Grounds upon which a private complaint could be dismissed as a whole or to the extent of some persons on basis of it being frivolous, malicious and vexatious stated.

To take cognizance of offence in complaint case, burden of proof in preliminary enquiry for the issuance of process or summons as the case may be was much lighter on the complainant and he was required to establish prima facie case, whereas, the burden of proof placed on the prosecution during regular trial was much stringent and the prosecution was required to establish and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

At the stage of summoning the accused, court was not to determine guilt or innocence of the accused on the criteria of evaluating the evidence as to whether prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not or whether accused ought to be acquitted by giving benefit of such doubt, which was beyond the scope of proceedings at the stage of issuance of process after making complaint as visualized under Ss. 202 to 204, Cr.P.C.

For deciding the question as to whether a prima facie case had been made out in an inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. the consideration should be from the point of view of the complainant without adverting to any defence which the accused may have

At such stage the accused had no locus standi and was not entitled to be heard on the question whether process should be issued against him or not.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 120-B, 148, 149, 295-B, 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(v), 337-C, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 365, 395, 427, 452 & 506

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7

Private complaint

Non-summoning of some of the accused persons including the then Prime Minister, a Provincial Chief Minister, certain Federal and Provincial ministers and senior bureaucrats along with other political personalities (respondents in question)

Incident involving clash between police and workers of a political party that resulted in about 10 deaths and injuries to several others

After being unsatisfied with the investigation and proceedings of the State case/FIR the complainant moved a private complaint

After recording cursory evidence, the Trial Court opined that there was no evidence to prove a prima facie case against the respondents in question, as such, they were not summoned and their names were directed to be deleted from the list of respondents

Legality

[Per Muhammad Qasim Khan, J dissenting (Minority view): In the first application moved by the complainant side for registration of FIR, it had provided the information and it was duty of the concerned investigating agency to dig out the truth, call the witnesses and collect the material in such respect

Complainant was not satisfied with the investigation in the FIR as senior officers and political high-ups were involved

During the proceedings of the private complaint the observations of Trial Court for disbelieving the cursory statements on the ground that the complainant side had not provided specific details about the number and colour of the vehicles, the building where meetings (for reconciliation) were convened, details of the call detail records, the way (route) of departure, did not appeal to reason

Trial Court considered the case from the angle of the defence

At the same time it appeared that the Trial Court did not fulfil its obligation to determine truth or falsehood and it even did not examine the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. and report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in the state case registered regarding the same occurrence

Impugned order to the extent of non-summoning of the respondents in question was against law as the sufficiency of material available on file had not been properly appreciated, thus the same was set aside

His Lordship remanded the case to the Trial Court with the directions that it was duty of the court, during proceedings under S. 202, Cr.P.C., to determine the falsehood or truthfulness of allegations levelled in the complaint, and the court may hold further inquiry into the matter or get it investigated through any person/agency or a team of experts, as the investigation by police officers did not appear to be appropriate exercise for the reason that number of police officers were involved in the case and had already been summoned; that to avoid complexity and multiplicity of the trial, the proceedings of the case to the extent of already summoned accused persons shall stand suspended till the conclusion of inquiry/investigation; that afterwards, if the remaining persons complained against were summoned by the Trial Court, it shall hold de novo trial and if it did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the remaining persons complained against, then it shall proceed against the already summoned accused persons from its current stage and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law]

[Per Aalia Neelum, J; Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J concurring (Majority view): Private complaint was filed by the complainant with a delay of 21 months from the date of occurrence and with delay of six months and 19 days from the date of first submission of the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. in State case (FIR)

In the private complaint, the complainant nominated 139 accused persons, whereas, in State case (FIR) 23 accused persons were nominated

In addition, the complainant in the private complaint had mentioned total number of injured persons as 66, whereas in FIR, 53 injured persons were mentioned

Complainant boycotted the investigations conducted by two JITs constituted by the government in the State case (FIR)

Story/roles ascribed to the respondents in question in the private complaint were not identical with the story as put up by the prosecution in the State case (FIR)

In the State case (FIR) the complainant impleaded only 9 of the respondents in question as accused but no specific role was attributed to them, whereas in the private complaint all 12 of the respondents in question had been impleaded

Complainant with some (ulterior) motive had introduced entirely a new story at the time of the filing of the private complaint

Furthermore in the private complaint, some additional allegations had been levelled in continuation of the attempt to connect the respondents in question with the incident

Allegations leveled in the private complaint were not based on direct knowledge derived from any individual but on conjectures and presumptions

Conscious of the fact that the respondents in question were not responsible for the offence, the complainant had sought aid of Ss. 109, 120-B & 506, P.P.C., but, again the complainant could not allege necessary facts to show prior meeting of minds of the respondents in question essential to make out a case of common intention or participation of the said respondents in any abetment, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation

In the absence of the existence of ingredients to constitute the alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, abetment and criminal intimidation, proceeding against the respondents in question on the basis of private complaint would be abuse of process of court

Respondents in question could not be summoned in the private complaint by invoking S. 120-B or Ss. 109 & 506, P.P.C., as the words allegedly stated by the some of the respondents in question during a reconciliation meeting did not constitute commission of offence of criminal conspiracy, abetment and criminal intimidation

At no point of time, till registration of case, it was the version of the complainant that he also attended the (reconciliation) meeting chaired by the Provincial law minister (one of the respondents in question)

Even in the private complaint the complainant had not mentioned that he also attended said meeting, however, in his cursory statement the complainant stated that he had attended the said meeting

No authenticity could be given to newspapers cuttings that reported threats allegedly made by some of the respondents in question

Complainant had alleged that an aircraft carrying the head of his political party was prevented from landing at its destination and was diverted to another city, however no specific date, time and name of the aircraft, was provided in the complaint or in the statement made on oath nor in the State case (FIR)

Importantly the complainant had not stated in his statement that any complaint was lodged by any of the passengers or members of crew of the said aircraft

Section 202, Cr.P.C. conferred all powers available to a police officer in charge of a police station for purposes of investigation except the power to arrest without warrant

Difference between investigation carried out after registration of FIR under S. 154, Cr.P.C. or investigation as initiated under S. 156, Cr.P.C. and investigation carried out under S. 202, Cr.P.C. had to be kept in mind

In the former, investigation officer had vast powers even to arrest an accused without warrants and in the latter he had to proceed with limited scope under the control and direction of the court which had taken cognizance of the complaint and he was only to submit his report for the purposes of assistance whether the person complained against was to be summoned or not and he (Investigation Officer) could not arrest without the permission of the court.

In such cases the order not to summon some of the persons complained against to such extent amounted to partial dismissal of the complaint.

When the court had itself taken cognizance and conducted an inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and recorded statements of some of the witnesses, the same court could also subsequently direct the police for investigation or further inquiry.

During inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C. the Court had to consider material and not the evidence in terms of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, therefore, at such stage critical element was relevance of such material and not its admissibility or evidentiary value, which was to be established at trial stage.

Court was to adopt the process of inquiry or investigation by applying its judicious mind considering the facts and the circumstances of each case before it

Court could direct investigation of a case through Magistrate or Ex-Officio Justice of Peace or through police or any other person

Word “any other person” carried vast impression, and, it included officer(s) of any rank of any government, agency or even retired officers

For the purposes of justice if court felt necessary it may approach the federal government to get the services of any of its employees or agency like Federal Investigation Agency, etc., or any officer of any agency or officer related to federal establishment division or federal agency and performing duty in the control of any province but that too with the permission of both

Court while appointing any officer as inquiry or investigation officer shall ensure that no person should be appointed as such who had any direct or indirect interest with the complainant or the person complained against.

In a complaint case, Trial Court was not required to examine material minutely and or in depth, but had merely to see that prima facie a case had been made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of warrant or summons (as the case may be) under S. 204, Cr.P.C.

At the stage of consideration of the private complaint the court was not expected to see whether the allegations were likely to be proved by the materials produced before court.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 120-B, 148, 149, 295-B, 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(v), 337-C, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 365, 395, 427, 452 & 506

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7

Private complaint

Summoning of Provincial Inspector General of Police (the petitioner) as an accused

Incident in question involved clash between police and workers of a political party that resulted in about 10 deaths and injuries to several others

After being unsatisfied with the investigation and proceedings of the State case/FIR the complainant moved a private complaint

After recording cursory evidence, the Trial Court summoned the petitioner to face trial in the private complaint

Legality

[Per Muhammad Qasim Khan, J (Majority view): Sufficient material for summoning of the Provincial Inspector General of Police (the petitioner) was available before the Trial Court

Petitioner had a remedy before the Trial Court to move an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. for redressal of his grievance

[Per Sardar Ahmad Naeem, J concurring (Majority view): Perusal of the summoning order revealed that the Trial Court had applied its judicial mind and not only evaluated the statements of the complainant's witnesses but had also reviewed the documents appended with the complaint, marked and exhibited during the course of recording of the statement of the witnesses

By taking cognizance of the complaint, the Trial Court neither acted illegally nor with material irregularity

Even otherwise the High Court was always reluctant to interfere in a case where court of competent jurisdiction after examining evidence adduced before it concluded that a prima facie case was made out

No scope of interference was found with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court].

Orders of Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing of complaint or summoning of the accused were amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

Court had to satisfy itself as to the truth or falsehood of the complaint before issuing of process to the persons complained against

Object and scope of S. 202, Cr.P.C., was to allow free, fair and full opportunity to complainant to produce some material to make out grounds for issuing processes against accused; to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations for which the court was bound not only to scrutinize contents of complaint, nature of allegations made therein and material in support of accusation but also to call for record, report or summon any person, who in the opinion of the court, was acquainted with facts of the case and may be helpful to the court to satisfy itself in terms of S. 202, Cr.P.C., or the court may enquire or investigate the matter as provided under said section

Possibility of accusations turning out to be false or frivolous at the trial should not overbear the court from issuing the process if material available prima facie disclosed the case against the person complained

At such stage protracted inquiry or full dress rehearsal of trial was not required.

Order passed under Ss. 203 & 204 of Cr.P.C. was a judicial order.

Right of audience of the “persons complained against” in case where complaint was dismissed under S. 203, Cr.P.C. as a whole or to the extent of some of the persons complained against

Scope

Until process was issued, the person complained against did not have the status of an accused and had no right of audience before the Trial Court or before a superior Court at the pre-process stage

In the proceedings under S. 202, Cr.P.C. the person complained against had no right to appear and participate in such pre-trial proceedings

At such preliminary stage the court ascertained the truth or falsehood of the allegations levelled in the complaint.

Scope of such inquiry was extremely limited only to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process had been made out

In coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the court could take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations but there appeared to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him/them

Court had been given an undoubted discretion in the matter but the discretion had to be judicially exercised by it

Once the Trial Court had exercised its discretion it was not for the High Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Trial Court or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused

However, it was clear that to decide whether a process should or should not be issued, the Court had to consider whether the complaint disclosed all the essential ingredients of an offence

If the complaint did not disclose any essential ingredient of the offence, that would be a case where the complaint, taken on its face value, did not make out any case for issue of a process. [Majority view]

Plea raised by accused persons was that Magistrate had examined only one witness who was representative of complainant during inquiry

Validity

Not necessary for Magistrate to examine all witnesses produced at time of inquiry and was not necessary for a complainant to produce all witnesses during inquiry

Purpose of inquiry was to persuade Magistrate to form an opinion regarding credibility of complaint and prima facie a case was made out for taking cognizance

At time of examining witness during inquiry, Inquiry Magistrate could put some questions to clarify something and could examine any document annexed in complaint and referred by witness during such examination

Inquiry Magistrate was not required to cross-examine a witness and evaluate evidence in the way of Trial Court

Status of Inquiry Magistrate was at a pedestal higher than investigating officer but he was not allowed to enter into domain of Trial Court while evaluating record during inquiry

Report of Inquiry Magistrate could again be evaluated by Trial Court at time of framing of charge

Up to stage of inquiry, in a criminal complaint it was responsibility of complainant to establish that he had a prima facie case in his favour

As soon as cognizance was taken, accused persons would have every right to appear and defend themselves

Even before framing of charge accused persons could approach Trial Court for their premature or pre-trial acquittal by filing application under S. 249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and if they were able to convince Trial Court regarding their point of view they would be acquitted without bothering them to go through a full-dress trial

High Court declined to interfere in process issued by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

While dealing with a private complaint, at the initial stage, court had only to see as to whether a prima facie case had been made out by the complainant for issuing further process in the matter or not

No detailed inquiry was warranted at such stage.

Prosecution case was that the applicants got published a news with mala fide intention to defame and disrepute the respondent

Respondent filed private complaint against the applicants, which was admitted by the Trial Court for regular hearing and notices were issued in the name of petitioners for appearance

Applicants challenged the order for summoning them

Validity

Record showed that Trial Court after completion of codal formalities, had brought the complaint on record

Trial Court, after registering the case, took cognizance of the same and issued bailable warrants against the applicants

Applicants without approaching the Trial Court or availing remedy available under the law, had directly approached the High Court which was not permissible

In the present case, only process had been issued to the applicants for their appearance in the court and at the trial stage, they would be afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to disprove the allegations levelled by respondent in the direct complaint

Besides, other remedies admissible under the law would also be available to them for initiating appropriate proceedings against the complainant and also for awarding compensation to them, if it was found and concluded that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and had been filed with ulterior motive to victimize the applicants

Applicants had, prima facie, by-passed the ordinary legal course available to them provided under the Cr.P.C.

No exceptional circumstances having been placed to justify departure from normal course, inherent jurisdiction vested under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could not be exercised which otherwise would amount to interrupt and divert the ordinary criminal procedure

Circumstances established that no jurisdictional error or material illegality and irregularity in the impugned order was found, which warranted interference

Revisional application was dismissed accordingly.

Powers and jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. were discretionary in nature and were exercised only if the Court was satisfied that no adequate remedy was provided by law

Exercise of powers under S. 561-A Cr.P.C. was an exception and not a rule.

Petitioners contended that respondent had filed the private complaint as a counter blast of FIR got lodged by the petitioners and as such the complaint was not maintainable

Validity

Filing of complaint, recording cursory evidence in it and then on the basis of available evidence, order for summoning of an accused, could not be termed as abuse of process of law

Such like proceedings could not be challenged under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. but it might be called in question, through a revision petition and that too, before the revisional court of first instance

Petitioners, instead of adopting the legal mode of challenging the summoning order, through a revision petition before the competent court, had sought quashing of the said order by way of petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., which was not competent and maintainable, thus dismissed in limine.

Process within contemplation of S. 204, Cr.P.C. could be issued upon existence of 'sufficient grounds' to be contemplated on basis of cursory evidence

Formation of opinion by court did not require full dressed rehearsal nor anticipated failure of case of complainant would stand in impediment

Phrases 'sufficient grounds' and 'in the opinion of court' were expressions of higher import than mere accusations in contradistinction of information within meaning of S. 154, Cr.P.C.

Issuance of process required availability of proof in terms of Arts. 117, 118, 119 & 121 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

'Formulation of opinion' was not an exercise to be carried out subjectively and must be based upon some verifiable material capable of being transformed into evidence in order to sustain charge

Issuance of process warranted more objective and thoughtful consideration

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as there was no material illegality or flaw

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was son of one of the deceased who filed a private complaint against all accused persons during pendency of challan case before Trial Court

Trial Court dismissed the complaint mainly for the reason that it was filed with an unexplained delay of 5 months

Validity

Although, no limitation was prescribed in criminal prosecution, yet it was undeniable that the longer a complaint was delayed the lesser chances of it being true, more particularly, when it was based on oral evidence

Filing of complaint in issue by complainant belatedly, looked nothing but a conscious attempt to defeat process of law already set in motion by complainant through his FIR and then by his private complaint against all accused

Trial was substantially progressed and a number of witnesses stood recorded by Trial Court

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as same was a mischievous transaction and rightly nipped in bud

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Judicial Magistrate conducted inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and prepared a negative report, however, Trial Court differed with the report and summoned the petitioners

Validity

Third complaint against the petitioners had been filed by complainant on the same facts as incorporated in her previous two complaints

Said two complaints were dismissed for non-prosecution and as withdrawn on 12.4.2014 and 22.5.2014, respectively

Third complaint showed statement under S. 200, Cr.P.C. with cursory statement of a witness under S. 202, Cr.P.C.

Said statements were so wavered and insufficient that the Judicial Magistrate prepared negative report with the observation that the complainant wanted to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case of heinous nature

Record showed that maternal uncle of complainant had got registered FIR about the same incident against two persons other than the present petitioners

Complainant made statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. in the said FIR on 18.2.2014 with the contention that she had been repeatedly raped for about four/five months by accused other than the present petitioners

Due to which, she got pregnant whereafter said accused and his co-accused forcibly took her to an unknown lady doctor, for abortion

Investigating Officer submitted challan against both the accused in the Trial Court, where they were tried and acquitted on 28.4.2014

Complainant invented a new story against the present petitioners, which was dismissed for non-prosecution

Complainant instituted another complaint with identical allegations, which was dismissed as withdrawn

Said proceedings took place in presence of her counsel as evident from the order of the Court

Complainant sworn an affidavit to the said fact and submitted it before the Trial Court

Trial Court did not record acquittal of the petitioners in the said order, yet, it might be inferred that they had not been acquitted of the charge by the court, when it recorded that the complainant labelled them innocent

Effect

Trial Court must have examined the orders of dismissal of the previous complaints, but it did not look at the same and summoned the petitioners blindfoldedly

Attending circumstances of the case established that no sufficient ground was available for summoning the petitioners

Impugned order appeared to have been made without proper application of mind

Revision petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order

Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent lady was dismissed.

Court was duty bound to scrutinize the contents of the complaint, nature of allegations made therein, supporting materials, object intended to be achieved, possibility of victimization and harassment, other relevant record, if any, to ensure itself that no innocent person should suffer from the cumbersome process of law.

No limitation though existed for filing a private complaint, however, the longer a complaint was delayed, the lesser would be the chances of its being true, particularly when it was based on oral evidence.

Record showed that the impugned judgment was passed in a private complaint, therefore the petitioner/complainant was supposed to file a petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal of accused from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Remedy of filing an appeal with special leave of the court was provided under S. 417(2), Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of accused from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Revision petition in circumstances was not maintainable under S.439(5), Cr.P.C., which was dismissed accordingly.

No limitation prescribed for filing of a criminal complaint; however, the delay in approaching the court cast doubt on the veracity of allegations levelled in the same.

Issuance of summons in a criminal complaint should not be exercised mechanically, without application of mind.

Police submitted report before the Judicial Magistrate, who passed order for cancellation of FIR on the basis of police report

Respondent filed private complaint, in which after preliminary inquiry, it was concluded that no case was made out and the same was dismissed accordingly

Respondent No. 2 filed another complaint, in which matter was entrusted to Judicial Magistrate to conduct inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and submitted a report

Trial court, seized of matter, summoned the accused in private complaint

Validity

Record showed that trial court while passing the impugned order , issued summons to the accused persons without discussing and appreciating the inquiry report furnished by the Judicial Magistrate

Mere mentioning of the fact in the impugned order that the same had been taken into account did not satisfy the requirements of S. 202, Cr.P.C.

In such circumstances, criminal revision petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order

Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, which would decide the same afresh.

Petitioner was accused of filing false declaration at the time of submission of his nomination papers and he was summoned by Sessions Judge

Plea raised by petitioner was that complaint could not be filed by Election Commission directly in the Court of Sessions Judge

Validity

Election Commission or his nominee, in respect of cognizable offence under S.82 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, could file complaint under S.94 of Representation of the people Act, 1976

Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to directly entertain such complaint

No illegality or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction was pointed out in the orders passed by Sessions Judge

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery; forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document

Private complaint

Dismissal of

Petitioner/ complainant, had called in question orders of courts below, whereby, private complaint filed by him was dismissed

Private-complaint filed by the petitioner, had justly and lawfully dealt with by both courts below for, it being based on frivolous allegations, was not worth a lis, to be kept on file any longer, as an impending item

Case appeared to have been spurned as a ridiculous case by both courts below, and rightly so

Without the alleged victim being in picture, how petitioner could raise the plea that a damaging act towards the said person, had been committed by accused

Trial Court, as well as revisional court had covered up the most relevant and crucial fact, leading to dismissal of complaint-in-issue

Petitioner could be a lawful and dutiful citizen of Pakistan, but, he certainly would not enjoy any such right, whereby he could get a frivolous and malicious case lodged with the Police, or file a private complaint

Case before a court of law, on behalf of a person, envisaging therein; that some wrong had been done to said person by certain individuals; whereas it was not so believed by the said person; nor he intended to wage a legal war against any

Trial Court, as well as the revisional court had delivered judicious verdicts, based on sound reasons, which need not to be interfered with, in circumstances.

Act of terrorism, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, causing hurt by means of a poison, wrongful confinement, abetment, rioting, unlawful assembly and criminal intimidation

Private complaint

Private-complaint to the extent of S. 365-A, P. P. C read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was dismissed with the observation that complainant could file another private complaint before the court of ordinary jurisdiction

Validity

Impugned order was self-contradictory as on the one hand Trial Court observed that occurrence to the extent of abduction and receiving ransom was not believable and at the same time it was observed that complainant could file another private complaint to the extent of other offences before the court of ordinary jurisdiction

Trial Court had not taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the complainant

Serious allegations had been levelled against the accused

Sufficient material was available on record to proceed with the trial

Trial Court had only to see if prima facie case was made out or not

Appreciation of evidence at preliminary inquiry was not the purpose under S. 202, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had erred in law while dismissing the private complaint

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.