' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, ,J.---This Constitutional petition has been filed to call in question the order dated 7.10.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur. Whereby he affirmed the order dated 6.4.2005 passed by learned Magistrate, summoning the accused in a complaint filed by Abdur Rashid respondent No, 3 herein.
2. The facts in brief are that a complaint was moved by respondent No, 3/Abdul Rashid against the petitioner and others levelling certain allegations to the effect that on 19.6.2004, the -petitioner and others armed with weapons attacked on him by raising lalkara and also plundered the crops of the complainant; they also extended threats and made firing in the air thereupon F.I.R. Was registered against them but later on the police recommended the case for cancellation of the F.I.R; being dis- satisfied the complainant filed complaint before the learned Magistrate under sections 440/506-B, 447/427, 337-H(ii), 148/149, PPC. Statement of the complainant and preliminary evidence was recorded which consisted of Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Abbas. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the file and recording preliminary evidence issued process against the accused persons. This order of learned Magistrate was challenged in the revision and the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Liaquatpur vide his order dated 7.10.2005 rejected the same and maintained the order of the learned Magistrate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has raised the following pleas:--
(i) That the order passed by the learned Magistrate is an illegal order as the same has not been passed after discussing the whole evidence on the file therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate is not a speaking order in the eye of law.
(ii) That" the entire evidence was recorded by the Reader of the learned Magistrate.
(iii) That the prosecution story does not appeal to common sense and there is no tenable evidence on record to warrant petitioner's trial.
(iv) That the police had already discharged the accused-petitioners while recommending the case of F.I.R. Regarding the same occurrence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and also perused the orders passed by both the Courts below.
The learned Magistrate has issued the summons against the accused persons including the petitioner and others to face the trial after assessing the preliminary evidence just to satisfy himself that whether a prima facie case is made out against them and from the statement of the witnesses appeared before the Court, the Learned Magistrate has reached to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out against the accused which was affirmed by the learned revisional court. Provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked if it is shown that the prosecution is motivated by malice and the evidence on record even if accepted to be true, no offence is made out and that the continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. I have gone through the preliminary evidence, certified copies of which have been appended with this petition. Two witnesses including the complainant were examined. A bare reading of the statement of the witnesses indicates that prima facie the petitioner and others were victim of assult in consequence of which the crops of the complainant was plundered. Thus it cannot be said that private complaint filed and the proceedings initiated are an abuse of the process of the Court to warrant interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Read with Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 .
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner and others unsuccessfully assailed the order of the learned agistrate whereby they were summoned to face the trial, and the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Liquatpur vide his order dated 7.10.2005 dismissed the revision. There is no cavil with the proposition that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is concurrent with that of Court of under section 439, A, Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. On the other hand relate to inherent jurisdiction of this Court which stipulates that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be .Deemed to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or prevent abuse' of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court therefore, cannot be invoked as an additional or alternative remedy. Even otherwise the order of the learned Magistrate was an interlocutory order which cannot be challenged by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. I do not agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner and others have been summoned to face the trial by the learned Magistrate without applying his mind to the facts of the case. The simple fact that the learned Magistrate has not given detailed reasons for summoning the accused is not sought to come to a conclusion that he did not apply mind to the facts of the case. The learned counsel has failed to satisfy this Court that it was incumbent for the learned Magistrate to have stated reasons for summoning the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity ,in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below; neither he has established that the orders impugned have been passed without lawful authority. Reference in this context can be made to the cases of Manzoor Hussain and another Versus Manzoor Hussain (P.L.D. 1974 Lah. 202). Muhammad Siddique and others Versus Muhammad Yar and others (1995 P.Crl.L.J. 1639) andljaz Jawed and 4 others Versus The State (2000 P.Crl.L.J. 595).
7. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. .