M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- By means of this revision petition Abid Latif son of Muhammad Latif petitioner challenges the order dated 31-1-2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur dismissed his private complaint under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Filed by him against respondents Nos.2 to 11 herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Abid Latif son of Muhammad Latif (petitioner) filed a private complaint under the aforesaid sections in the Court of Session at Kasur. The said complaint had been entrusted to Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. The petitioner/complainant had nominated the following ten persons as accused:--
(1) Amjad son of Nazar Muhammad, (2) Sharif Sardar Sohdal son of Sardar Muhammad, (3)
Rashad Shahzad son of Muhammad Siddique, (4) Zubair son of Anwar, (5) Zaheer son of Shaukat Ali, (6) Shaukat son of Nazar (7) Tahir Khan son of Moosa Khan, (8) Irshad son of Khan Muhammad,
(9) Maqsood Ahmad son of Nazir Ahmad, (10) Muhammad Siddique son of Imam Shah.
3. Initially the petitioner/complainant had got F.I.R. No,804 of 2004 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. In respect of the same transaction, which is the subject-matter of the private complaint at Police Station Kasur. In the said F.I.R. The nominated accused persons were as follows:---
(1) Amjad, (2) Sharif Sardar Sohdal, (3) Rashad Shahzad, (4) Zubair, (5) Zaheer, (6) Shaukat, (7)
Tahir Khan.
(respondents Nos.1 to 7 herein). On submission of challan in the said F.I.R. The learned trial Court summoned all the seven nominated accused vide order dated 4-8-2005, out of whom Amjad (respondent No,1) had been declared proclaimed offender.
4. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant on 9-12-2005 after a lapse of one year of the incident. In the private complaint apart from the seven nominated accused in the F.I.R., Irshad, Maqsood, and Muhammad Siddique (respondents Nos.9, 10 and 11) respectively were added.
5. After recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the complaint vide the aforesaid impugned order dated 31-1-2006. He observed that there was no convincing evidence available against Irshad, Maqsood, and Muhammad Siddique; that the allegation against Irshad and Maqsood was that they had ineffectively fired at the complainant and Muhammad Qais, whereas the allegation against Muhammad Siddique (respondent No,10) was that of conspiracy and behind the scene abetment.
The learned trial Court also observed that apart from the aforesaid three respondents, rest of the seven nominated accused in the complaint have already been summoned to face trial in the State case and that if during the course of trial any incriminating evidence was brought against the said three respondents, the Court may summon them to face trial. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that in this connection the petitioner may make an application. It was in this background that the learned trial Court had dismissed the private complaint.
6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court did not properly peruse the cursory evidence produced in the Court, which according to him, prima facie contained incriminating material against Irshad, Maqsood, Muhammad Siddique (respondents Nos.8 to 10); that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also ignored the evidence of post-mortem report and medical evidence produced before him; that the learned trial Court could not have referred to the State case while deciding the fate of the private complaint; that the order passed by the learned trial Court is ambiguous and vague. He finally argued that the learned trial Court had deviated from the settled law governing disposal of a private complaint as envisaged in Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the documents appended with this petition.
8, Examination of the impugned order, dated 31-1-2006 reveals that the same had been passed after conscious application of judicial mind. After examining the case from all angles and analysing the material available on the record, the learned trial Court did not find prima facie case against respondents Nos.8, 9 and 10 and declined to summon them. The rest of the accused persons nominated in the complaint had already been summoned by him in the State case, and no useful purpose would have been served by summoning them all over again. Summoning them in the private complaint would have resulted in wastage of time and effort, especially when the prosecution story in the complaint case and in the State case was exactly the same qua the seven accused, who had been summoned in the State case. There was hardly any occasion for the learned trial Court to have referred to the postmortem report or the medico-legal reports as there was no attribution against respondents Nos.8, 9 and 10 of having caused any injury to anyone. Even otherwise during preliminary inquiry the Court is not required to enter into the realm of deeper appreciation of the evidence available on the record. It has only to consider prima facie the merits of the, ex parte evidence recorded during the course of inquiry, so as to come to a prima facie conclusion. From the tenor of the impugned order it is also discernible that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not been influenced by the State case in any manner as alleged by the petitioner/complainant. In this backdrop there was no harm in juxtaposing the State case and the complaint case, so as to come to a just and fair conclusion. It is not for this Court to substitute its findings with that of the learned trial Court at this stage. The impugned order is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by this Court. This petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed in limine.