1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Through this criminal miscellaneous application the applicant has called into question the order, dated 7-8-2009, passed by VII Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West, in Crime No, 105 of 2009 registered under sections 395, 435, 506-B and 106, P.P.C. At Police Station Manghopir, Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that one Ali Asghar son of Muhammaa Ibrahim lodged an F.I.R. At Police Station Manghopir to the effect that on 20-6-2009 when he was driving truck bearing Registration No,TKJ 430, he was stopped by Abdul Razzaq and some other persons at Bund Murad near Hamdard University. It is alleged that the accused Abdul Razzaq and his companions snatched mobile phones and some cash from the complainant and his friends/co-workers and put the truck on fire saying that you people had held a protest demonstration against Sardar Saleh Muhammad Bhotani and Aslam Bhotani and this is the result of the same. It also alleged that the said accused persons threatened the complainant and his companions that if they did not stop protesting against the said persons they will lose their lives.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submitted that no statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded in the first investigation conducted by Inspector Dilawar Hussain, who submitted a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Requesting the Court to dispose of the case as final under "A" Class. He submitted that in the second investigation, as many as 30 witnesses were mentioned but statements of the complainant, Ali Asghar and his two witnesses namely Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Haider, were not taken into consideration.
4. ' The learned Prosecutor-General, Sindh submitted that if the applicant/complainant is not satisfied he can still file a direct complaint. He relied on an order, dated 27-2-2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,13 of 2007.
5. ' It is correct that the case was investigated first by Investigating Officer Dilawar Hussain, who submitted final report under "A" Class due to lack of evidence. However, it was observed by the Judicial Magistrar.: that this Investigating Officer confined his investigation to the site inspection only and did not record evidence of any eye-witness. This report was rejected by the Court and case was registered vide Court's order, dated 28-5-2009. This order was subsequently set aside by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West vide his order, dated 1-6-2009 and it was ordered that the investigation be handed over to another Investigating Officer. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-- "In the light of the above order passed by the learned Magistrate is converted in the so moto (Suo Motu) revision and impugned order is set aside. However with the consent of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as by learned DPP and Incharge DPP, DIG Investigation is directed to transfer the investigation of above F.I.R. To an honest/independent officer who should record the statements of complainant and the P. Ws. And submit the proper report under section 173, Cr.P.C."
6. ' Accordingly, the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Ch. Manzoor Ahmed of AVCC. This Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident as well as recorded statements of eye- witnesses Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Hussain. During investigation it transpired that the truck was set on fire by some 10/12 motor cyclists, who were riding on 6/7 motorcycles, as the said truck had hit one motorcycle. In the F.I.R. It was alleged that the accused were caught by Surjani Police but during investigation this fact also proved to be wrong. Accordingly, the second Investigating Officer i.e,, Inspector Ch. Manzoor Ahmed, submitted a report in "B" Class for disposal of the case as false.
7. ' In view of the above, the VII Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West, observed as under:-- "I have perused the report in hand in the light of record. It is revealed from the record that the present Investigating Officer has taken all legal effort to collect the evidence of commission alleged offence. During the investigation he recorded statements of eye-witnesses of the alleged incident so also he visited the place of incident. As per statement of eye-witness it is shown that no such incident was accursed (sic) as per the version of the complainant. The complainant has misleader and misused the facts."
8. ' Finally, the said Judicial Magistrate held as under:-- "After taking into consideration the above facts, the report in hand under "B" Class is hereby approved. The concerned police authority as record to initiate proceeding under section 182, Cr: P.
9. C . Against complainant. (sic)"
10. ' The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that if statements of the said three witnesses, namely, the complainant and Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Haider, were taken into consideration, it was have fully implicated the accused person is not tenable as it was on the basis of the statements of independent witnesses that the case was disposed of in "B" class.
11. ' In the un-reported order, dated 27-2-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,13 of 2007, although it was held that submission of a report under section 173, Ct.P.C. By the Investigating Officer in A Class "was dishonesty", even then the complainant preferred to file a direct Private Complaint as he was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police. In the present case, prima facie, it cannot be said that the report was dishonest.
12. In view of the above, I am of the view that if the police did not find it fit to submit challan in the present case, the complainant cannot force it to do so. However, there is a remedy available to the complainant, if he is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police, by way of a direct private complaint. In this way he would be at liberty to produce evidence to establish guilt of the accused.
13. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this miscellaneous application is dismissed but the complainant would be at liberty to avail the remedy of filing direct complaint, which will be decided on its own merits.
14. ' Before parting with the case I would like to observe that on 11-3-2010, when arguments were heard in this case and it was reserved for orders, learned counsel for the applicant sought time to submit case-law in support of his case and he was allowed three days time to do so. However, he failed to supply any case-law within the time stipulated for the purpose.