Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 13.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he had dismissed the private complained filed by the petitioner observing that there were no grounds available for summoning Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 as accused.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the criminal revision are that Muhammad Hashim father of the complainant Mushtaq Ahmad had installed a saw Machine near Nasir Patrolmen Chowk Godar to earn his livelihood. On the night of 7.4.2005 as usual after closing the business of saw machine, the complainant alongwith his father Muhammad Hashim, mother Jinda Mai, Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Arshad alongwith other inmates of the house went to sleep. Electric bulbs of Court-yard and outside were on. At about 3.00 a.m. all of a sudden the complainant and the PWs woke up on hue and cry of Muhammad Hashim father of the complainant. The complainant and the PWs saw in the light of electric bulb in the compound of court-yard, that two persons, namely, Muhammad Ajmal armed with pistol and Akthar Husain armed with carbine, were present.
Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Hashim had held each other in JAPPAH and Akhtar alongwith Ajmal were launching threats to the father of the complainant and were demanding whatever money he had. Father of the complainant was offering resistance. The complainant and her mother alongwith others tried to intervene on which Akthar Hussain brandished carbine and threatened that whoever came close would be done to death. The PWs were afraid and did not come close. Ajmal while trying to be detached, dragged father of the complainant outside the court-yard while Akhtar did not allow the PWs to go outside. Then Akhtar came outside and the PWs also came at the door. In the light of bulb, Ghulam Qasim was seen standing empty handed.
Ajmal was still in the clutches of father of the complainant. On which Ajmal called Akhtar Husain for rescue and committing Qatl of Muhammad Hashim. Akhtar Husain made a fire with carbine in his right armpit. The victim fell on the ground and soaked with blood passed away. The accused alongwith arms managed good their escape. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon case FIR No, 76 dated 7.4.2005 was registered at P.S. Qureshi and the statements of the PWs. The police did not arrest Ajmal accused and challaned only Akhtar Husain and Ghulam Qasim.
Therefore, the complainant made a private complaint, stating that the FIR was recorded by the police on his statement but the same was neither read over nor copy of such was supplied to him and that the FIR was not recorded as he stated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while dismissing the complaint, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Muzaffargrah has not taken into consideration the parameters of law as provided in Noor Elahi's case (1966 SCMR 708).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents Nos, 1 & 2 has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the complaint has followed the law laid down in the Noor Elahi's case.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The question in this case is whether the private complainant can be dismissed in limine or not.
For this purpose Section 203 Cr.P.C. is relevant, which is as under: "Dismissal of complaint. The Court before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred or sent may dismiss the complaint, if after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the result of the investigation or inquiry if any under Section 202 there, is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such case, he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing'.
In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge actor considering the statement of the complainant and the preliminary statement of witness No, 1 Muhammad Arshad, dismissed the private complaint submitted by the complainant/petitioner on the ground that there were no grounds available for summoning the respondents Akhtar Hussain, Ghulam Qasim and Muhammad Ajmal, as accused. The complainant was filed after a considerable delay, therefore, there is every possibility of improvement and B concoction in the prosecution version. It is true that an aggrieved person has a right to agitate his grievance for redressal before the police or Court but in case no justification and proper explanation is given for inordinate delay and the material produced by him is insufficient, Criminal Court would be justified in not issuing the, process. It is not that in every criminal case, process is to be issued as a matter of course. Each and every complaint is to be scrutinized and the material produced is to be examined and the process is issued only when the material produced is found to be sufficient. Even otherwise the rule laid down in Noor Elahi's case (PLD 1966 SC 708), which is to be the effect that the complaint case ought to be taken up first of trial and the police challan ought to be taken up thereafter, has been taken into consideration as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken up the private complaint of the complainant/petitioner first, as soon as it was filed.
7. In view of the above circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had authority to C dismiss the private complaint without summing the accused. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.