' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:--- "In view of the above mentioned circumstances and humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the process issued against the petitioner dated 13-9-2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad may be declared as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and the same be quashed/set aside".
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that F.I.R. No,407 of 2005 dated 4-10-2005 was registered under sections 302/324/ 148/149/337-F(iv)/34/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad. Petitioner was given a role of indication of deceased in the said F.I.R. Neither any injury caused to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner nor any active role has been given to the petitioner. Matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and petitioner was declared innocent and even never arrested during the course of investigation. The political opponents of the petitioner in connivance with the widow of the deceased who was not even eye-witness of the occurrence after the lapse of 10 months got filed erroneous private complaint before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who without even perusing the material on record and holding preliminary inquiry as required under section 202, Cr.P.C. And applying his judicial mind summoned the petitioner to face the trial, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private complaint was filed by the widow of the deceased with mala fide intention after 10 months of the F.I.R. For the reasons that complainant of the private complaint namely Mst. Rahat Firdos was not eye-witness of the occurrence but she showed herself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence in the private complaint; that during the investigation of the said case, number of respectable of the locality appeared before the local police and recorded their statements regarding the innocence of the petitioner, that the sole aim of the complainant to file the private complaint is to restrain the petitioner from forthcoming elections as it is in the knowledge of the complainant that the petitioner will contest the election for the seat of MNA and his position is very strong and that the trial Court has erred in deferring the issue till recording of evidence. The order is against the spirit of section 265-K of Cr.P.C. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no possibility of sustaining of the charge, the case should be quashed.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the private complaint was supported by four witnesses including the eye-witness and that statements of two witnesses have been recorded. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case, his case shall certainly be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In this petition, issuance of process in the name of the petitioner has been challenged on various grounds and has prayed that process issued against the petitioner dated 13-6-2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad be declared as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. Section 204, Cr.P.C. Postulates that when in the opinion of a Court taking cognizance of an offence that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding in the complaint, it shall issue summons or warrants in the name of the accused as the Court may think for their attendance. Requisite conditions listed under section 204 is the presence of sufficient grounds and its satisfaction is to be ascertained from the facts placed before the Court. Availability of some evidence on the record is not essential before summoning the accused. Provisions of section 204 provide for formation of opinion" by Court taking cognizance of offence and availability of "sufficient ground for proceeding". For recording conviction there must be evidence in support thereof but no such evidence was required for issuance of process and summoning of accused person. The expression "sufficient grounds" used in section necessarily means/requires the presence of facts or evidence prima facie constituting an offence to enable the Court to issue process. When material is placed before the Court in the shape of complaint accompanied by tentative evidence recorded and the Court is satisfied with such material, the Court is vested with discretion to issue process. Sufficient material is available to satisfy the trial Court to issue the process in the name of the petitioner, who appeared before the trial Court and is admitted to bail by the same Court. In this respect reliance can be made to the cases of Nazir Ahmad and others v. The State 1990 M LD 2084, M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State PLD 1967 SC 317.
7. The word "prima facie case" does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case, which can be said to be established if the evidence led in support of the same is believed.
8. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is a belated one has no force. The delay by itself in filing the complaint may not be fatal to reject the evidence in support, which may otherwise be entitled to credence. No doubt the longer of a complaint is delayed the less becomes the chances of believing in its truth, more particularly, when it is based entirely upon oral evidence but the same has to be decided after recording the evidence of the parties and cannot be rejected straightway. A complaint cannot be dismissed for the reasons that it was filed because the police had delayed submission of challan and the complainant had made the improvements, which are in conflict with the case registered earlier. The trial Court is not to comment upon the merits of the case till he has recorded entire evidence which complainant wishes to produce. Dismissal of complaint in hasty manner is never approved. In this context reliance is placed to the case of Khurshid Anwar v. The State and 3 others 1996 M LD 111.
9. The other argument that since the accused was found innocent in successive police investigations, therefore, he cannot be summoned in the complaint case is also without basis as held in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad v. Muhammad Saleem and 2 others 1995 PCr.LJ 1900, an accused found to be innocent in successive investigations can be summoned by the trial Court in a complaint case after recording the cursory evidence.
10. From the above discussion, it is held that truth or falsehood of complaint in the preliminary inquiry is, not to be adjudged at the initial stage and the same has to be adjudged on the basis of evidence subsequently led by the complainant in support of a complaint. Where a complainant had approached the Court with a private complaint being dissatisfied with the conduct of the police, the trial Court is required to record the cursory evidence of the complainant and if satisfied can issue process in the shape of the summon or warrant requiring the accused to appear in the Court. As discussed, only prima facie case is required for taking cognizance under section 204, Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to go into the details by conducting the preliminary trial, thus the impugned order clearly shows that the same has been passed after taking into account the statement of the complainant made by her in line of the complaint submitted before the Trial Court. No ground for setting aside the impugned order is made out.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Miscellaneous having no force is dismissed.