' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, Rasheed Zargar petitioner, by means of instant criminal revision petition, has sought for setting aside of order dated 10-4-2010, passed by Mr. Atiq-ur- Rehman, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore; whereby the learned trial court by way of dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 190, Cr.P.C. Read with section 302, P.P.C., seeking summoning of accused persons mentioned therein had declined the relief prayed for.
2. Facts of the case, succinctly required for determination of the petition in hand are that case F.I.R.
No,1062 of 2006, dated 28-12-2006 stood registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore on the complaint of petitioner under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., against accused/respondents. The trial of the case started and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were also recorded. Whereafter on 23-12-2009, the petitioner filed complaint under section 190, Cr.P.C. Read with section 302, P.P.C., seeking summoning of accused in complaint case and for their trial, however, the same was dismissed in terms of order impugned, which is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and against the dictates of law of the superior courts of the country, on the subject. Learned counsel further stated that the police being in connivance with the accused persons did not proceed in the state case lodged by the petitioner in accordance with law and the Investigating Officer tried his best to give benefit to the accused persons. Learned counsel further stated that the Investigating Officer did not record statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. In true perspective, who had promised to make up deficiency in subsequent case diaries; however, he has done nothing. Even the police did not arrange test identification parade of the accused persons and also . Did not record statement of wife of the petitioner, who is eyewitness of the occurrence.
Learned counsel argued that after recording cursory statements of the P.Ws., the learned trial court was not justified to decline the complaint for summoning of accused and their trial. Learned counsel further stated that perusal of cursory statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial court reveals that all of them had supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner had made specific allegations against the police that it had failed to conduct proper investigation. In support of his stance, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Habibullah v. Political Assistat, Dera Ghazi Khan and others (2005 SCM R 951).
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner remained mum for four years for which no reason has been explained. Learned counsel further stated that filing of complaint after such a considerable period when statements of some of the prosecution witnesses also stand registered, is uncalled for. It is submitted by the learned D.P.-G. That the learned trial court while determining the matter in its true perspective has rightly declined the relief and no exception can be made to the well reasoned order.
5. In the light of arguments I have gone through the record as well as law on the subject.
6. Having much regard for the case-law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I may observe here that each criminal case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and facts of the instant se are quite distinguishable from that contained in above referred case. Admittedly case F.I.R. No,1062 of 2010, dated 28-12-2006, offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., A registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore was lodged on the complaint of complainant/present petitioner against the accused persons. The police after recording statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had submitted challan before the learned trial Court, trial of which is underway. Astonishingly petitioner, complainant of the F.I.R. Remained mum for four years about the investigation and proceedings carried out by the Investigating Officer. Stance of the petitioner that the police deliberately did not record statement of his wife under section 161, Cr.P.C., who is eyewitness of the occurrence, cannot be entertained at this stage. Had the petitioner any suspicion qua malice of the Investigating Officer, who allegedly is in connivance with the accused persons, he might have agitated the matter before the concerned quarter well in time, which has not been done. The petitioner had ample time to invoke the learned trial Court by way of seeking the same relief, at that time and filing of complaint could provide an equal adequate relief to the petitioner. Now such plea taken by the petitioner at a belated stage, I may observe, is too late and one cannot be given blank chit to seek relief at the time of his own choice. Needless to mention that law I favours the diligent and not the indolent. I am fortified in my view by the settled law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following cases:-- ' 2001 SCM R 1738 Muhammad Salim and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 2003 SC 14 Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others
7. The upshot of my above discussion is that the petitioner cannot be allowed to file complaint under section 190, Cr.P.C. When he kept silent for a considerable period spreading over four years merely on the ground that the police/Investigating Officer did not record statements of the eye- witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. The instant petition is devoid of force, which is accordingly dismissed. 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.