HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--Ghulam Raza and four others, by submitting this criminal revision have called in question the legality of the order dated 18-7-2009, whereby they have been summoned to face the trial in a complaint case filed by respondent No,2.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that initially a case was registered on the statement of one Irshad Hussain against Ghulam Hussain, who is father of Tasawar Abbas with the allegation of killing Mst. Amna Parveen, who was wife of said Ghulam Hussain. However, for the commission of the same crime respondent No,2 son of Amna Parveen, the deceased, filed a complaint under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Against all the petitioners with the allegation that said Amna Parveen was stabbed to death by Ghulam Raza petitioner No,1 after barging into the house of the deceased in the company of petitioners Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel further adds that before filing the said complaint, respondent No,2 and the other two legal heirs of the dceased had sworn affidavits whereby it was agreed that they would not pursue the murder case; that after swearing the affidavit Tasawar Abbas respondent No,2 had no right to file the complaint against the petitioners.
3. Heard. The documents appended with this petition perused.
4. According to the F.I.R. Which was lodged on the statement of Irshad Hussain petitioner No,2, Amna Parveen was done to death by her husband namely Ghulam Hussain. Conversely, respondent No,2, who is real son of the said deceased, filed a complaint against all the petitioners with the allegation that his mother was brought down to the grave by the petitioners. In the said complaint after recording cursory statements of the witnesses and going through the same the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, summoned the petitioner to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not claimed that the material on the basis of which the petitioners were summoned to face the trial is insufficient. Be that as it may, the order of summoning the petitioners in the private complaint filed by respondent No,2 is perfectly in line with the case of Noor Muhammad v.
The State and others PLD 2007 SC 9, in which it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court as under: - "The proceeding under section 204 or 203 depends upon the existence or non-existence of sufficient ground which have been taken by the Courts as the existence of prima facie case, the two expressions i.e, the existence of sufficient ground and prima facie case have been construed by the Courts interchangeably. In the case of "Sher Singh v. Jatendranath Sen" (AIR 1931 Cal. 607), it was held "a prima facie case only means that there is ground for proceeding. It is not the same thing as proof which comes later when the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty." There is a marked distinction as to the approach of appraisal of material on record i.e, averments made in the complaint and the statement made on oath by the complainant, at the time of holding of a preliminary inquiry for determining as to whether the process to be issued against the accused or not and at the regular hearing of the criminal case leading to determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court is not expected to examine C the material minutely whereas at the stage of trial it appraise the evidence thoroughly and record its findings on the basis of such appraisal and that any benefit of doubt arising out of such inquiry should be given to the accused. It is not the stage where a material available on the record is assessed in depth but a prima facie case has to be made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of the process . "
'It was further held in the said case as under:--- "If a complaint is made before Court, it is only to see the existence of a prima facie case either on the basis of averments made in the complaint and the statement of the complaint on oath or on the basis of an inquiry if the Court thinks fit to hold an inquiry in order to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint."
5. After applying the litmus test laid down in the aforesaid case, I have come to the conclusion that no illegality had been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order.
Insofar as contention regarding the swearing of affidavits by the legal heirs of the deceased including respondent No,2 is concerned, the said affidavits appear purportedly drafted and signed on 16-2-2009 i.e, before filing of the complaint. In the said affidavits, it was not claimed that Amna Parveen deceased was not done to death by the petitioners. Be that as it may, mere filing of the affidavits cannot be considered a legal evidence, unless and until the deponents of the said affidavits own the said affidavits before a Court of law. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said deponents including respondent No,2 had owned the contents of the said affidavits before any Court of law. By filing the complaint respondent No,2 has resiled from the contents of the said affidavit even if the same was made or sworn by him. Since it is not the case of the petitioners that the said affidavit was owned by respondent No,2 before any Court of law, the Court is not in a position to give any finding about the authenticity of the contents of the said affidavits and it is not known under what circumstances and for what consideration the said affidavits were sworn as claimed by the petitioners, therefore, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is hereby repelled. Consequently, the petition in hand stands dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.