Dismissal of complaint

Applicant assailed order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby application filed by him under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., for direction to S.H.O. to record his statement and register FIR against proposed accused person was dismissed

Validity

There was no error in the order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Applicant was at liberty to approach concerned Court of Investigating officer for recording his statement and he could also file suit for recovery of his articles/commodity against the person to whom such articles/commodity was entrusted for safe transportation

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Section 203, Cr.P.C., reflects that it applies at the stage preliminary to the commencement of trial; therefore, if complaint is withdrawn during that stage, result shall not be in acquittal of accused.

After receipt of complaint, if complaint is made in writing to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the same, he shall return the complaint for presentation to the proper court under S. 201 of Cr.P.C.

However, after receipt of complaint by the Magistrate, who is competent to take cognizance of the case, Magistrate, at the time of taking cognizance on a complaint, has to at once examine the complainant upon oath and reduce the substance of the examination to writing, which shall be signed by the complainant as well as Magistrate

Thereafter, Court can postpone the issuance of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and either inquire into the case itself or direct any inquiry or investigation to be made by the Justice of Peace or by a police officer or by such other person for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint

Court may dismiss the complaint if after statement of the complainant recorded on oath and result of investigation or inquiry, if any, under S. 202, Cr.P.C., in judgment of the Court there is no sufficient ground for proceeding

If Court considers that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding, then it shall issue process for attendance of the accused in the complaint.

Conduct of the complainant indicated that in fact he had no evidence against the accused and that's why he was avoiding to appear in the witness box

Prosecutor though had referred to the order of Trial Court in which it had ordered the arrest and production of material witnesses but if the witnesses were brought in chains then they could not be treated as free and impartial witnesses

Failure of the complainant to appear in the witness box for the last 14 years despite being available around the court was enough to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused

Application was allowed as prayed.

Under S. 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, order that was appealable to High Court was an order made: (a) under subsection (2) of S. 3 of the said Act; (b) under subsection (3) of S. 3 of the Act; and (c) under subsection (1) of S. 8 of the Act

Orders passed under subsections (2) & (3) of S. 3 of the Act were those where a punishment was handed down; whereas an order under subsection (1) of S. 8 was where a further direction were given for restoration of possession of the property

Order impugned was neither of such orders as it was an order dismissing the complaint and therefore not appealable under S. 8-A of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Applicant assailed order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby his direct complaint was dismissed under S.203, Cr.P.C.

Applicant had sought cognizance in the case by alleging that fraud was committed by Mukhtiarkar and Tapedar in collusion with the respondents

Sale deed on the basis of which the applicant had claimed his right over the property was disbelieved by the competent civil court and the same was declared as null and void

Applicant had failed to produce material which constituted any offence allegedly committed by the respondents

Dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature but the applicant in order to create harassment and pressure over the respondents had filed the direct complaint and had tried to convert the civil litigation into criminal

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complaint is to state the facts to satisfy the Court of the existence of every ingredient of alleged offence, otherwise, complainant would not be entitled to invoke aid of the Court and to foist travails of criminal trial on a person, accused by him

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

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

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

Court cannot proceed to issue process against accused until and unless, it is satisfied that prima facie case has been made out against those who are accused of the alleged criminal offence.

Complainant contended that he was awarded contract for construction of a road; that the government department paid substantial amount through running bills; that certain remaining amount with call deposit amount and security amount had not been paid, therefore, he filed direct complaint before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), which was dismissed

Validity

Complainant was awarded two different projects and the enquiry report revealed that the complainant did not complete the project and the scheme of the projects was later on taken out of Annual Development Plan and that no amount of complainant was outstanding against the department

Complaint revealed that the complainant had filed direct complaint by suppressing material facts

Trial Court, by dismissing the direct complaint, had not committed any illegality

Revision application, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Respondent lodged FIR against the accused party alleging therein that they were carrying guns and lathis and committed murder of two persons and that one of the accused had also murdered their own brother

Accused persons claimed that their brother and two others were killed by the complainant party

First Information Report got lodged by accused party, after being investigated twice was disposed of under 'C' class by the Magistrate

Accused party thereafter filed direct complaint before the Magistrate, which was also dismissed

Witnesses of the complaint were already facing trial for the charges of triple murder including their own brother

High Court observed that direct complaint was filed as a counterblast to the FIR got lodged by the respondent and remanding the case to the concerned Magistrate to take cognizance would not serve the purpose when the other party was seriously disputing the facts as mentioned in the FIR got lodged by accused party

No exceptional circumstances were present in the case for interfering in the order of the Magistrate

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court whereby his complaint was dismissed under S. 247, Cr.P.C. and accused was acquitted

Validity

Complainant initiated proceedings under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and Trial Court under S. 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, took cognizance

Where contravention of S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was made out on a complaint, the offence was non-cognizable under S. 4(2), Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

No provision of appeal in Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 existed but Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, was applicable and provisions of appeal and revision provided in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, were applicable by implication

Complainant had remedy of filing application for leave to appeal within 60 days from date of order but he did not do so and instead instituted revision

Remedy was available to complainant under S. 417(2), Cr.P.C. but neither same was availed nor any request was made for conversion

Complainant failed to point out any illegality or error of law committed by Trial Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused, who died during pendency of revision, during his life time interfered into land of the petitioners and took over the possession of land illegally and petitioners filed complaint under Ss.3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Two reports were obtained by the Trial Court

First one was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the other was submitted by Naib Tehsildar, which reports had clearly revealed that deceased/accused was in illegal occupation of land belonging to the petitioners

Contention of the petitioners, was that due to death of deceased accused, proceedings would not abate, but would continue against his legal heirs to the extent of illegal possession of disputed land

Material available on record had established that deceased accused, without any lawful authority, had illegally encroached upon the property in question

Trial Court was only required and prompted to form prima facie opinion of the title for the purpose of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without prejudice to the final and authoritative adjudication on the matter of civil dispute, but there was no civil suit pending at that stage

Trial Court accepted application of accused filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., acquitted the deceased accused; whereas, law required that when the court had issued the process on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out and as such cognizance taken, could not be recalled or reversed, especially when charge had been framed by the Trial Court

Only course to be left in such eventuality to accused side was to assail such process before the appellate or revisional court as the law did not provide any power of review to the same court

Claim of the petitioners in such situation would survive despite the fact that accused was no more active and legal heirs of the deceased could be proceeded for the restoration of possession of the disputed land to the petitioners

Revision was allowed, impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside

Station House Officer concerned and Tehsildar, were directed to restore the possession of the disputed property of the petitioners within 30 days in accordance with the reports after demarcation on spot and would enter the same in revenue record for the future reference under the law.

Dismissal of a complaint under S. 203 Cr. P. C. could not be equated with the acquittal recorded after/during the trial.

Trial Court dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the photocopy of Notification in the shape of true copy was inadmissible in evidence

Said orders were maintained by the revisional court

Validity

Admittedly, the complaint was dismissed at the very inception without recording the statement of the complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C., which stipulated that a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on complaint should at once examine the complainant upon oath

Substance of the examination should be reduced to writing and should be signed by the complainant and also by the Magistrate

Section 203, Cr.P.C. empowered the Magistrate before whom a complaint was made or to whom it was transferred or sent, may dismiss the same after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and the result of investigation

Magistrate had not adopted the proper mechanism provided by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 while dismissing the complaint

Magistrate, on receiving a complaint, would take the cognizance thereof under S. 190(a), Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was incumbent upon him to examine the complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C.

Inquiry or investigation thereafter, would be ordered to be conducted under S. 202, Cr.P.C.

In the present case, original Notification in favour of the complainant which had authorized the complainant to file complaint, was not annexed

Trial Court could have summoned the original record or direct the complainant to produce the original Notification instead of dismissing the complaint

Notification annexed with the complaint was not objected to by the other side nor was challenged at the preliminary stage of the complaint

Objection as to the admissibility of document was to be raised during its production by the complainant

Statement of the complainant having not been recorded, therefore it could not be said that complainant did not possess the original document to produce at the time of recording his statement

Circumstances established that impugned orders of the Trial Court and revisional court were not tenable in law, case was remanded to the Magistrate for entertaining the complaint in accordance with law.

Complainants alleged that being ancestral property they were in possession of land in question but they were dispossessed by the accused persons

Enquiry report was not supportive to the allegation of complainant

Record of rights was mutated in favour of complainant in respect of land in question "without possession"

Complainant also failed to bring on record any material to establish that at any point of time they were in occupation of land in question

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Allegation of applicant was that Revenue Department had allotted piece of land to his Madrasa which was registered, but respondent had occupied some portion of that land, and had constructed a shop there

Applicant had not disclosed the date and time when alleged dispossession had taken place

In the claimed title documents, no exact description of land was given and it was also not clear as to what was the exact location of land claimed by the applicant

Applicant had failed to point out any sketch of the area, through which revenue department, or any land governing agency had given the possession of land to him by proper document

Trial Court had observed that remedy through civil proceedings was always available to the applicant

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not applicable in the case of applicant

Well reasoned order, passed by the Trial Court, which covered almost every aspect of matter, could not be interfered with

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complaint, under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that petitioners/proposed accused persons, had forcibly dispossessed complainant from the premises in dispute

Contention of the petitioners, was that complaint was not maintainable, as the same was filed malafidely and the Trial Court had recorded statement of the complainant without administering oath to her

Validity

For proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, recording of statement of the complainant, on oath was not essential requirement

Contention of the petitioners in view of the record, could not be sustained

Complainant was directed to be given opportunity to prove the contents of her complaint by adducing evidence

Order accordingly.

Petitioner, who was tenant in shop in question, was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed by the landlords on the pretext that petitioner had not paid utility bills of the shop in question

Respondents after dispossessing the petitioner, locked the shop

Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against his illegal and unlawful dispossession, without even going for the trial simply on the ground that petitioner did not fall within the definition of offender as given in S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Trial Court while passing impugned order failed to assign any reason

If respondents were of the view that, the petitioner was guilty of non-payment of utility bills of the shop, they were not supposed to take law in their hands

Respondents could file case for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant in terms of S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but, instead they chose to apply force to dispossess the petitioner

Petitioner, was deprived of fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Arts.4 & 10-A of the Constitution

Order passed by Trial Court, was set aside and case was remitted, with directions that complaint filed by the petitioner, be disposed of after framing charge, and recording evidence of all the parties, mentioned in the Police report or any other witness, that parties could choose to bring in support of their case

Pending proceedings, possession of shop in question should be handed over to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Complaint was dismissed on the ground that appellant being not a "consumer", could not initiate the proceedings under Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995

Validity

Under provisions of S.2(3) of Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995, "consumer" was a person who hired any goods or services for consideration

"Services" as provided in S.2(5) of Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995, included services of any description, which were made available to potential users and included providing of facilities in connection with, inter alia, supply of electrical, or any other form of energy

Respondent company was the supplier of electricity/energy in the area

Appellant being the user of electric supply fell within the definition of "consumer"

Appellant being 'consumer' within the meaning of Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995, could institute proceedings under the Act

Case was remanded to Consumer Court for decision on merits, in circumstances.

Complaint was dismissed mainly on account of two reasons that there were contradictions in the cursory statements of the prosecution witnesses, with the averments of F.I.R. and that accused were absconders

Validity

Contents of the complaint as well as cursory statements and other material adduced by the witnesses of the complainant reflected that those were in line with the story advanced in the crime report lodged by complainant soon after the occurrence

Trial Court while giving finding on that score, had committed grave misreading and non-reading of material available on record, which in ordinary course of law, was not expected from such a senior judicial officer to act in such a casual manner

Accused, after lodging of F.I.R., had absconded; and after initiating proceedings under Ss.87/88, Cr.P.C. they were declared proclaimed offenders

On arrest of one of the accused persons, other accused persons got pre-arrest bail, and subsequently withdrew the same on account of having been declared innocent; and when the complainant came to know about that fact, he filed complaint, wherein accused did not appear and Police reported that they were fugitive from the law

Trial Court, in circumstances was not justified in dismissing the complaint for the reason that the matter was old one and accused were already declared proclaimed offenders

Findings of the Trial Court on that score were contrary to scheme of law on the subject

Findings of the Trial Court that by issuing process against accused person, it could create delay in disposal of trial against accused being against the norms of criminal justice, was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside and as a result whereof the complaint filed by the complainant would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court

Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within three months from the receipt of said order, in circum-stances.