' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---A notice had been issued to respondent No,2 for today's date of hearing but she has not bothered to enter appearance or to contest this petition. Even otherwise by virtue of the provisions of section 440, Cr.P.C. This Court can decide the present revision petition without hearing the parties.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner is the complainant of and respondent No,2 is an, accused person in case F.I.R. No,2 registered at Police Station Sadar Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura on 1-1-2003 for offences under sections 302/109, P.P.C. After completion of investigation a challan has already been submitted in the said criminal case. Respondent No,2 had also filed a private complaint against six persons in respect of the same murder and after holding of an inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. And recording of preliminary evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura had, vide order, dated 6-11-2003 summoned three persons belonging to the petitioner's party to face a trial. On 14-1-2004 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura framed a charge against the accused persons in the complaint case and on 19-1-2004 an application was submitted by the present petitioner for framing of the charge in the challan case as well but that application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide order, dated 3-3-2004.
Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the relevant record of the case appended with this revision petition it has been observed that while passing the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura had relied upon the case of Noor Elahi v. The State and 2 others PLD 1966 SC 708 so as to hold that the complaint case is to be tried first and after its decision the State case may be taken up for trial. While passing the impugned order the learned trial Court had, however, overlooked the fact that the law is by now well settled that if the same party lodges an F.I.R. And, after having remained dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the police, files a private complaint in respect of the same allegations then in such a situation the complaint case is to be tried first and, if needed to, the, challan case is to be tried later. In this regard a reference may be made to the cases of Noor Elahi v. The State and 2 others PLD 1966 SC 708, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 53, Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid and 5 others 1981 SCM R 361, Mumtaz and others v. Mansoor Ahmad and another 1984 SCM R 221, Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1986 SC 737 and Aziz-urRehman v. The State PLD 1987 Lah.
245. However, the legal position is quite different if the challan case and the complaint case have been filed by different parties contain different versions and are directed against different sets of accused B persons and in such a situation the trial of the complaint case and the challan case are to be held simultaneously and side by side and not one after the other. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. The State and another PLD 1971 SC 713, Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 and Rashid Ahmad v. Asghar. Ali and others PLD 1986 SC 737. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura had not appreciated the above mentioned distinction and had, thus, erred in law in ordering the complaint case to be tried first and in postponing the proceedings in the challan case till after the decision of the complaint case. As the challan case and the complaint case in the present case have been filed by two different parties, contain two different versions and are directed against two different sets of accused persons, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the above mentioned cases the challan case and the complaint case are to be tried simultaneously and side by side. This revision petition is allowed, the impugned order, dated 3-3-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to hold the trial of the challan case and the complaint case simultaneously and side by side.
Revision .