1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Heard learned counsel. According to the learned counsel in a private complaint the trial Court is bound to issue warrants in the first instance and in the present case according to the learned counsel the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) has issued process. According to him, no application for bail was made by the accused and no bail order was passed by the trial Court, therefore, the Court has erred in law by following the procedure violative of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. ' With profound respect, the Court has adopted the correct procedure. Section 204, Cr.P.C. Requires a Court to issue process if it is of the opinion that there is sufficient material against the accused for trial. It further authorizes the Court that even in non-bailable offences, the process can be issued in the first place unless the Court is of the opinion that issuance of process may defeat proceedings by absconsion. This provision gets further strength from provisions of section 90, Cr.P.C., which again empowers the Court to exercise its discretion and in case if the Court is of the opinion that issuance of process might defeat the proceedings then the Court after recording reasons can issue warrants.
3. ' The grievance of the applicant is foreign to the provisions of sections 90 and 204 of Cr.P.C. As according to the learned counsel the accused after furnishing bail bond is attending the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code is meant to advance justice and the provisions provided therein are not mandatory in nature but are directory as no penalty for non-compliance has been provided therein. Consequently I am of the view that the procedure adopted by the trial A Court was proper and no injustice has been caused to the applicant.
4. ' The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Noor Bibi v. The State reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 505.
5. The cited case is distinguishable on facts as no F.I.R. In the present case has been lodged and instead private complaint has been filed. Even the suit authority does not advance the case of the applicant as the surety bond has been furnished by the accused in Court.
6. ' This Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed along with the listed application.