Through this Constitutional petition petitioner Ghulam Murt,aza son of Muhammad Ashraf assails the order dated 11.12.2009, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2009 of the Magistrate Section 30, Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner against Respondents Nos, 3 to 5 for snatching his motorcycle on pistol point and giving him beating.
2. Facts of the case are very simple. According to the instant petition, Respondents Nos, 3 to 5, namely, Ibrar Hussain son of Muhammad Anwar Chohan, Muhammad Sarfraz son of Karam Ali and Ahmad Nawaz son of Murad Ali stopped the petitioner while he was on his way on the motorcycle to the house of his sister at Chak No, 557/TDA. The respondents on pistol point deprived him from his motorcycle and also gave beating and ran away from the scene; on the hue and cry raised by him and on the report of firing PWs attracted to the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the statement of the petitioner the concerned Police Station registered the case only against one person; that they did not mention the other two accused in the FIR, and that no proper sections were incorporated in the FIR; the petitioner filed a private complaint but the learned Maga Magistrate after recording cursory evidence illegally dismissed the same. Further submits that criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Magistrate has also illegally been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. Learned Magistrate Section-30 recorded the cursory evidence of the complainant Ghulam Murtaza and PWs Abdul Ghaffar and Ijaz Ahmad. Ghulam Murtaza complainant stated that a muffled face person stopped him and shown him 30-bore pistol and asked him to hand over the motorcycle, but on his resistance the muffled person gave him a But-blow of the pistol on his head and during resistance veil of the said muffled face person was dropped and he was recognized by the complainant as Ibrar Ahmad, and the other accused persons were recognized as Muhammad Sarfraz and Ahmad Nawaz. The complainant did not state whether their veils were dropped or not and how he recognized them. He stated in his evidence that all the accused were armed with pistols, whereas it is not so mentioned in the complaint. Abdul Ghaffar stated in his statement before the Court that the accused were giving beating to the complainant with hand and they were armed with revolver and they were trying to snatch the motor cycle. He did not remember the registration of the motorcycle. It is to be noted that complainant in the FIR got recorded by him regarding the same occurrence mentioned Amir Maqsood and Shaukat Ali as witnesses but in the complaint he did not mention their names as witnesses. Further the private complaint was filed after five months of the lodging of the FIR.
5. There are material contradiction in the statement of the complainant made by him in cursory evidence and the complainant. Statements of the other two PWs also contain contradictions. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner by giving cogent easons. The criminal revision of the petitioner filed against the order of the learned Magistrate has also rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There are concurrent findings given by the two Courts below based on good appreciation of evidence and material before them, which need no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
6. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed in limine.