' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---This case was registered vide F.I.R. No,16, dated 9-7-2004 under section 324, P.P.C. (later on converted into section 302, P.P.C.) at Police Station Qureshi Wala District Lodhran on report of Khadim Hussain, petitioner. After conclusion of investigation the trial commenced. Seven witnesses have been recorded. The complainant filed complaint on 20-11-2007 against six persons under sections 302/324/ 109/148/149, P.P.C. Inter alia alleging that accused had made extra judicial confession before the P. Ws. During the trial. The complaint was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide his order, dated 27-2-2008 assailed through this revision.
2. Preliminary arguments heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph No,7 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-- "The perusal of record shows that complainant at different stages of the investigation changed his version. He got recorded the F.I.R. Against unknown culprits, subsequently he introduced 4 accused in this case and again he implicated a couple of other accused along with definite motive against the said accused. Throughout the investigation and even after submission of challan during the last more than three years he never agitated this story unfolded in this complaint before any Police Officer/ Investigating Officer or before this Court. It is totally unbelievable that without any pressure or any other solid reason the respondents could make a voluntary confession before the complainant especially when the trial had already been commenced and chapter of investigation was closed. The conduct of the complainant is not only self-contradictory but neither fair nor just.
In the complaint the complainant has not disclosed that trial of the case is also pending before this Court in which a certain number of prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. In this background I do not find any justification to summon the respondents in this case as apparently it appears to be a conscious effort on the part of the complainant to implicate the respondents in this case due to certain ulterior reasons".
' It was urged that the grounds mentioned by the learned trial Court for dismissal of the complaint are without any force. Once the statements of the complainant etc., were' standing unrebutted on record, the Court had no option but to summon the accused any try them in accordance with law.
The learned trial Court was supposed only to see as to whether a prima facie case was made out against the respondents and whether sufficient grounds existed to summon the accused. In the light of unchallenged material, the complainant had made out a prima facie case, hence, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on PLD 2007 SC 109.
4. The above paragraph of the learned trial Court precisely contained that the history of investigation and the somersaults taken by the petitioner. It appears that he himself remained confused throughout. The only material on the basis of which this complaint was filed appears to be the extrajudicial confession. Nothing else was alleged or substantiated before the learned trial Court.
5. In view of the above, I hold that the order passed by learned trial Court is un-exceptional and this petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision .