' Through this criminal revision the petitioners have assailed the order dated 13-12-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca District Lodhran wherein learned Court has accepted the complaint of respondents and summoned the petitioners as accused.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that Mst. Faizan Mai widow of Ahmad Yar deceased lodged a Crime Report No,558-98 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
At Police Station, Saddar Kehror Pacca against Ahmad Sher, Khurshid Bashir, Zahoor, Saeed Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal but during the investigation the police out of the accused mentioned in F.I.R. Found Saeed Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Iqbal and Zahoor not involved in the case and submitted challan against Ahmad Sher, Khurshid Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad along with Muhammad Aslam and Shabbir Ahmad.
Being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police the father of the deceased filed a private complaint against Ahmad Sher. Khurshid Ahmad, Mulazim Hussain, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Nawaz Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam son of Khuda Bakhsh and Muhammad Siddique, that means Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam and Shabbir along with Muhammad Siddique were common accused in both these cases whereas in addition to the said accused the complainant who is father of the deceased had added Khurshid Ahmad and Ahmad Sher. Thereafter second complaint was filed by Abid Hussain who was the brother of Mst. Faizan Bibi, and brother-in-law of the deceased wherein he nominated petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 namely Mumtaz, Iqbal, Zahoor, Saeed Ahmad, Nazir along with Ahmad Sher, Khurshid, Bashir and Muhammad Aslam. Learned trial Court in view of Noor Elahi's case reported in PLD 1966 SC 708 proceeded with the matter by consolidating the challan case and the complaint case and initiated the proceedings in private complaint which at present is near to its conclusion and accordingly the proceedings in the challan case would be taken subsequently. Learned trial Court in the impugned order directed the accused persons in second private complaint to furnish their surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court and after the proceedings in the first private complaint the second private complaint was ordered to be taken up. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground that while passing the impugned order learned trial Court has committed grave error by holding that prima facie in view of the material on record, offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Was made out against the petitioners and summoned the petitioners to face the trial. Further submits that during pendency of challan case lodged by widow of the deceased as well as complaint case lodged by the father of the deceased regarding the same occurrence the filing of second private complaint against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 based on ulterior motive and mala fide that the learned trial Court has failed to take notice while summoning the petitioner to face the trial in the second complaint, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. It is note worthy that second complaint had been filed after more than one year of the summoning of the accused in the first complaint and after about 4 years of registration of the F.I.R. With regard to an occurrence which had taken place on 31-7-1998. By going through the record with regard to F.I.R.
First complaint and second complaint and the order passed by the learned trial Court and the proceedings undertaken in the first complaint case, I am of the view that firstly criminal proceedings were initiated by setting in motion the machinery of law by lodging the F.I.R. No,558-98 when the occurrence had taken place against Ahmad Sher, Khurshid Bashir, Zahoor, Saeed Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal but after the completion of investigation the challan was submitted against Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam, Khursheed Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad and Ahmad Sher. Feeling aggrieved the father of the deceased filed a private complaint wherein vide order dated 19-4-2001 the private complaint was admitted to regular hearing and the accused persons namely Ahmad Sher, Khurshid, Muhammad Aslam son of Nawaz, Mulazim Hussain, Bashir Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam son of Khudah Bakhsh and Muhammad Siddique were summoned to face the trial under sections 302/201/148/ 149/109/337F(iv)/337A(ii), P.P.C. In view of Noor Elahi's case the proceedings were initiated in the private complaint. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter statement of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the case was ripe for final arguments when second private complaint was lodged by one Abid Hussain who is brother of the complainant in F.I.R. And the brother-in-law of the deceased on 29-7-2002 after about 4 years of the occurrence. The learned trial Court after recording the preliminary statements of the witnesses as well as the complaint had bound down all the accused persons named therein vide impugned order. This practice of filing of second complaint after about 4 years of occurrence with same set of facts and almost against same set of accused persons with addition of one more accused was not justified in view of statutory B provisions and the settled practice of the criminal Courts. There is no cavil with the legal proposition that second or third F.I.R. Can be lodged with regard to the same occurrence, however there must be valid reasons justifiable in the eye of law for doing so. By going through the contents of F.I.R. And second complaint, it becomes clear that there was no difference with regard to occurrence. Moreover no logical explanation had been advanced for delay of four years in lodging the second complaint except ulterior motive on the part of the complainant, which cannot be appreciated in the circumstances of this case. Learned trial Court should have first concluded the proceedings in the first complaint case, thereafter in the challan case, if need be strictly in accordance with well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established principle of criminal law that when there are two pleas regarding same occurrence in the form of challan case and private complaint, with same set of accused and that of witnesses and if accused in the complaint case are convicted then there is even no need to proceed with challan case and if accused are acquitted in complaint case then challan case may proceed. Here in the instant case complaint as well as challan case regarding same occurrence with almost same set of accused are pending adjudication. Therefore, to my mind there was no need to entertain the second complaint after lapse of four years. The impugned order lacks any legal basis and if such practice is allowed that would open the floodgate of complaints. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was not justified. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is allowed and impugned order, dated 13-12-2002 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings in the first complaint filed by Muhammad Sharif in accordance with Noor Elah's case and thereafter to proceed with the challan case if need be.