' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--Mst. Nasreen Bibi has directed this revision petition against the order dated 16-4-2005 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Depalpur, whereby he declined to issue process against Abdul Waheed respondent and dismissed the complaint instituted by the petitioner on 26-2-2005 in regard to an occurrence which took place on 30-9-2001 at about 11-00 p.m. In which petitioner's husband Muhammad Yasin was murdered.
2. Admittedly F.I.R. No,657 of 2001 was registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara immediately after the occurrence at about 1-45 a.m. On the statement of Muhammad Ali father of Muhammad Yasin deceased. According to the F.I.R. (Annexure-A) Muhammad Ali complainant had three sons. Muhammad Yasin deceased aged about 42 years was his eldest son who lived with his family separately. Muhammad Yasin had four sons and five daughters. He often used to quarrel with his wife Mst. Nasreen Bibi. On the night of occurrence at about 11-00 p.m. There was a report of fire. The complainant, his sons Muhammad Ashraf and Mukhtar Ahmad son of Haji Abdul Ghafoor Kamboh rushed to the place of occurrence. They found Muhammad Yasin lying injured. He had sustained one fire-arm injury on his head which was bleeding. He was removed to the hospital. The petitioner told Muhammad Ali that an unknown person had fired at her husband with a pistol and ran away towards the village. Muhammad Ali stated before the police that he had no enmity and that he would disclose the motive for the offence after verification. However, he alleged that the occurrence was the result of family affairs. Muhammad Yasin died on 15-10-2001.
3. During the investigation of the case, the petitioner pleaded innocence and held Abdul Waheed respondent for the murder of her husband. She filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No,19501 of 2001) for a direction to the S.H.O. Concerned to record the statement/version of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. In the said petition the petitioner's version was that on the night of occurrence, she, her husband Yasin and son Muhammad Imran were sleeping in the courtyard of the house while rest of her children were sleeping in the room. She alleged that Abdul Waheed respondent entered the house by scaling over the wall and fired a shot with his pistol hitting Muhammad Yasin on his head. The petitioner and her son identified the accused at the spot and tried to catch hold of him but the accused fled away. The injured was taken to the hospital. In view of his serious condition he was shifted to General Hospital, Lahore where the died on 15-10-2001. She maintained that she had nominated Waheed as the accused before Muhammad Ashraf, S.-I., Muhammad Ali son of Siraj Din and Ghulam Ullah the father of Abdul Waheed accused but they collusively got a false case registered.
4. Pursuant to an order of this Court dated 30-10-2001 the petitioner's version was recorded by the police and was found to be false. The S.H.O. In his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Dated 20-2-2003 placed the petitioner in Column No,3 whereas Abdul Waheed and Karamat Ali were cited in Column No,2. After the commencement of the trial the prosecution concluded its evidence on 22- 3-2005. Just before that the petitioner instituted a private complaint on 26-2-2005. In complaint she changed her version. She alleged that on 29-9-2001 she and her husband Muhammad Yasin were sleeping in the room while her children were sleeping in the courtyard. When she woke up at 11-00 p.m. On a foot noise she found a person armed with a pistol standing in the room. She identified him as Abdul Waheed son of Ghulam Ullah. She offered to give him everything and entreated him not to open fire. In the meantime her husband also woke up and started grappling with Abdul Waheed upon which Abdul Waheed opened fire hitting Muhammad Yasin on his head.
Her children tried to apprehend him but he managed to escape. Muhammad Yasin was taken to hospital in injured condition when her father-in-law Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Ashraf met her at Adda Rajuwal. She maintained that she could not disclose the name of Abdul Waheed accused because of the presence of Ghulam Ullah the father of Waheed accused. She thought that her husband would narrate the occurrence himself after regaining health. She alleged that Ghulam Ullah had forcibly obtained her thumb impressions on a stamp paper. She further alleged that she was with her husband in the hospital at Lahore during which Ghulam Ullah had taken her children into custody and obtained their statements. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, to whom the complaint was entrusted, recorded the statements of Mst. Nasreen Bibi, her son Muhammad Imran and daughter Mst. Abida Shaheen but declined to issue process against the accused, mainly on the ground that the complaint had been filed 3 1/2 years after the occurrence and secondly on the ground that it contained her defence version. Hence, this petition.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was sufficient evidence showing culpability of Abdul Waheed accused for the murder of Muhammad Yasin, as such, the learned trial Court was not legally justified to refuse to issue process against the accused merely on the ground of delay in filing the complaint.
6. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the entire material appended with this petition. The petitioner admitted in her complaint that she had not disclosed the name of the accused when she took the deceased to the hospital because of the presence of Ghulam Ullah, father of Waheed accused. Her version in Writ Petition No,21331 of 2001 was that the occurrence had taken place in the courtyard where she, her deceased husband and son Imran were sleeping while the rest of her children were sleeping in the room. Whereas in the private complaint her version was that the occurrence had taken place inside the room in which she and her husband were sleeping. Had she identified the culprit at the time of occurrence no body could stop her from disclosing the name of the perpetrator. Her version was brought on the record and found to be false during the investigation of the case. In this view of the matter the delay of about 3-1/2 years in filing the complaint that too just before the conclusion of the prosecution evidence was just an attempt to protract the trial. I find no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Before parting with this judgment it may be observed that the learned trial Court, while dealing with the main case, shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. This petition is dismissed.