' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---This criminal petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby while accepting the criminal revision filed by respondent No,2 (Sh.
Khalid Masood) the order of the learned trial Court for summoning him, in a complaint case under section 302/109, P.P.C. Filed by the petitioner, was set aside.
2. Petitioner/complainant reported to the police about the murder of his father Ghulam Muhammad by one Zubair, co-accused of respondent No,2, by firing at him with a 12 bore repeater gun at the time of barat/marriage ceremony of one Safdar Iqbal who then resorted to aerial firing in order to give an impression that the deceased sustained injuries accidentally. The motive was stated to be that the petitioner lodged a report against the brother of the complainant about the quarrel and beating of his servants, for which a case was registered. The case was pursued and prosecuted both by the petitioner and his co-accused Zubair. However, during investigation they (the complainant party) were declared innocent. The petitioner being aggrieved of the above occurrence was openly pronouncing that he would take the revenge. During the investigation, of the instant case, the police opined that the deceased was hit accidentally during an aerial firing made to celebrate the departure of Barat and the case was recommended to be challaned under section 322 P.P.C. The complainant, not satisfied with the investigation of the police, tiled an application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. Before the learned Justice of Peace for conducting of the investigation by other agency/police officer, but could not get the required results ultimately filed the complaint against the accused respondent No,2 and his co-accused Zubiar before the Court under section 302/109, P.P.C. The Court, after its satisfaction about the existence of a prima facie case, issued process against the accused/respondent, which order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court through a revision petition, which was accepted and the order of the trial Court of issuance of summons against respondent No,2 was set aside and it is this order which has been challenged before this Court in the instant criminal petition.
3. The questions for consideration are of two folds i,e, (i) what is the scope/criteria of the proceeding in a complaint case for issuance of the process (summons/warrants) against the accused and, (ii) whether the High Court, without arriving at a definite conclusion that the lower Court has deviated from the said criteria can interfere in its revision jurisdiction.
4. The procedure in a complaint case has been provided in Chapter-XVI of Cr.P.C. On presentation of a complaint the Magistrate while taking cognizance under section 200, shall examine the complainant upon oath and the substance of the examination, reduced to writing and to be signed by the complainant and by the Magistrate. Section 201 r which is not relevant for the purpose of the question involved in the case, deals with the situation when the. Court is not competent to take cognizance of the case then the same shall be returned to the complainant for its proper representation to the competent Court. According to section 202, the Court on receipt of the complaint of an offence of which it is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been sent to it under section 190, subsection (3) or transferred to it under section 191 or section 192 may if it thinks fit for the reasons to be recorded postpone the issuance of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. Section 203 empowers the Court to dismiss the complaint after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and the result of an inquiry, if any, under section 202 there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding for the reasons to be recorded for so doing.
Section 204, which is in Chapter-VII, Cr.P.C. Deals with the issuance of process. According to this section the Court shall issue the process if in its opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding and an appropriate process may be issued in the form of summons or warrants to the person complained against.
5. The scheme of the aforesaid provisions of law envisages that after making a complaint, the Court shall examine the complainant on oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by both the complainant and the Presiding Officer and if the complaint is made in writing, the Court may examine the complainant on oath. The Court, then, if found sufficient ground for proceeding then the process is issued under section 204 and if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding the complaint, then, is dismissed under section 203 for which reasons will have to be recorded. However, the Court if not certain about the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint, then on postponement of the issuance of process, for which reasons will have to be recorded, it may direct investigation/inquiry to be conducted in order to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and after arriving at a conclusion in either way, the Court then, may proceed either under section 204 for the issuance of process or under section 203 dismiss the complaint. The proceeding under section 204 or 203 depends upon the existence or non-existence of sufficient ground which have been taken by the Courts as the existence of prima facie case, the two expressions i,e, the existence of sufficient ground and prima-facie case have been construed by the Courts interchangeably. ##T## In the case of "Sher Singh v. Jatendranath Sen" (AIR 1931 Cal. 607), it was held "a prima facie case only means that there is ground for proceeding. It is not the same thing as proof which comes later when the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty". There is a marked distinction as to the approach of appraisal of material on record i,e, averments made in the complaint and the statement made on oath by the complainant, at the time of holding of a preliminary inquiry for determining as to whether the process to be issued against the accused or not and at the regular hearing of the criminal case leading to determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court is not expected to examine the material minutely whereas at the stage of trial it appraise the evidence thoroughly and record its findings on the basis of such appraisal and that any benefit of doubt arising out of such inquiry should be given to the accused. It is not the stage where a material available on the record is assessed in depth but a prima facie case has to be made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of the process. The burden of proof in a preliminary inquiry for the issuance of process is quite lighter on the complainant as compared to the burden of proof on prosecution at the trial of an offence as the prosecution is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and at the preliminary stage the complainant is not required to discharge above heavy burden of proof. The Court cannot overstretch the proceedings as to convert the preliminary inquiry or the averments made in the complaint to a stage of full-fledged trial of the case. It is quite an initial stage where after the accused is having the opportunity, apart from showing his innocence in the case at the final stage, to have a recourse of an intermediary remedy by moving the Court showing the complaint to be false and frivolous one and requesting the Court for his acquittal under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Prior to further proceeding in the case to be taken. Mere summoning of an accused by the Court to answer the charges levelled against him does not tantamount to any infringement of any right of a person but rather an opportunity afforded to him to explain his position. During the investigation of a F.I.R. Case, where the police is empowered to arrest without warrant i,e,, in cognizable case, such a process i,e,, arrest etc. Is resorted to by the police, even in a case where the person accused of the charge pleads innocence before the police and he succeeds in his efforts to some extent and the police agrees with him, yet before any recommendation by the police for his discharge an insistence is made on his surrender before the authorities/Courts. The possibility of accusation turning out to be false or frivolous at the trial should not overbear the Court from issuing the process if the material available, prima facie discloses the case against the accused. At this stage a protracted inquiry or full dress rehearsal of trial is not required.
' Moreover, section 250, Cr.P.C. Also provides sufficient safeguard to an accused against a false and frivolous accusation by the complainant, which envisages that the Court while acquitting an accused at the trial stage, holding the charge brought against him, was false, frivolous or vexatious has sufficient power to award adequate compensation. If a complaint is made before the Court, it is only to see the existence of a prima facie case either on the basis of averments made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant on oath or on the basis of an inquiry if the Court thinks fit to hold and inquiry in order to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint. The order of the trial Court in the instant case has fully met the requirements of law by holding the existence of a prima facie case after which the processes were issued.
6. After answering the first question in affirmative now we have been left, with the second question relating to the power of the High Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in such like matters. In the present case the High Court for arriving at the impugned conclusion has taken note of the detailed reasoning advanced by the learned counsel for the parties touching the merits of the case on the basis of the appreciation of material on record very minutely, which was construed as evidence duly recorded in a trial of a case and also the reasoning advanced by the Court itself for reaching such a conclusion by discussing in detail the material in depth conveying an impression as deciding a case which is at its final stages determining the guilt or innocence of the accused on the criteria of evaluating the evidence as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not and while giving such a benefit the accused ought to be acquitted, which is beyond the scope of the proceedings at the stage for issuance of process after making a complaint visualizing under sections 200, 202, 203 and 204, Cr.PIC. The High Court has scrutinized the evidence very minutely and has gone to the extent that even inference has also been drawn, about the impossibility of presence of witnesses to overhear the accused/respondent No,2 while hatching the conspiracy and to discredit the evidence/material on record, detailed comments have been made, which is beyond the scope of the proceedings in question necessary for the issuance of the process. The High Court instead of correcting any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has rather committed illegality itself by going beyond the scope of the proceedings. It is the stage of only summoning of the accused and interference in the order of the trial Court while issuing process against the accused tantamount to stifling of the proceedings/trial of the case, depriving the Court to adjudge the evidence to be produced by the complainant and the right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and to explain any incriminating evidence against him and enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion determining truth of the matter. The order, interfered with by the High Court, was neither perverse nor arbitrary or suffers from any illegality or irregularity but quite in consonance with law and the principles laid down by the Courts.
7. Resultantly, we hold that the High Court has wrongly interfered with the order of the trial Court and the same is not maintainable and requires reversal, therefore, while allowing the petition, it is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment, dated 12-7-2005 is set aside and case is remanded to trial Court for proceeding afresh in accordance with law.