It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was lodged in the case by Muhammad Ashraf complainant for the murder of Muhammad Shahbaz against six accused persons but later on, on the same day he submitted an application which is annexure 'B' in which he added 10 more accused. He submits that the challan was framed against the accused persons on 20.3.2004 that on 18.5.2004 formal witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court, that lateron, on the verbal request of the complainant the learned trial Court has summoned the petitioners vide order dated 1.9.2004. He submits that order of summoning the petitioners is arbitrary because according to the statements of the witnesses recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C., sixteen persons were named as accused. He further submits that neither the petitioners are placed in Column No, 2 nor in Column No, 3 of the challan so they could not be summoned. He has relied upon PLD 1998 Lahore 523 & 1982 P.Cr..J. 52.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners were named in the FIR and that the application annexure 'B' has been denied by Muhammad Ashraf respondent during the course of investigation. He submits that the Court has power to summon the said accused persons. He has relied upon PLD 1988 S.C. 52, headnote 'C'.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case only six accused were named in the FIR and according to the report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. present petitioners were found to be innocent as neither they were placed in Column No, 2 nor in Column No, 3 of the challan. The application allegedly submitted by Muhammad Ashraf respondent on the same day before the I.O. has been denied to be given by him before the S.P. investigation during the course of investigation.
According to 1988 S.C.M.R. 1428 titled as Waqar-ul-Haq alias Nithoo and another vs. The State, their Lordship of the Supreme Court had held that even the accused who have been found innocent and the police has discharged them, can be summoned to stand the trial because the case was not cancelled. In another Full Bench judgment reported as 1985 S.C.M.R. 1314 titled as Raja Khushbakhtur Rehman and another vs. The State, it is held by the Apex Court that the accused placed in Column No, 2 of the challan can be summoned. I have also gone through the FIR. Petitioners are' named in the FIR. The learned trial Court has rightly used its power to summon the present petitioners. No interference is called for in this petition and the same is dismissed.