1. FAISAL ARAB, J.---Impugned in this Criminal Revision is the order dated 17-3-2009, passed by Anti- Terrorism Court, Sukkur on an application, which was though filed under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. ought to be under section 265-K, Cr .P.C, by the applicants. Nevertheless, the scope of such application is the same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No, 1 the Principal of Saint Savior School and College, filed a Direct Complaint No, 143 of 2008 in the Anti-Terrorism Court. The allegations in the Direct Complaint were that the applicant No, 1, the ex-Principal of the Saint Savior High School and College, on 24-4-2008, along with her accomplices and police functionaries forcibly entered the School, snatched weapons from the private Security Guards and entered the room of the respondent No, 1 and then, directed her accomplices to kidnap respondent No, 1 and her other two colleagues. It is stated that the accused persons dragged the complainant party outside the School, boarded them on the Police Mobile and then, took them to New Pind Police Post where they were kept in police custody for two hours and thereafter, they were set free. It is alleged that when they came back to School, the complainant found CDs, USBs, cash of Rs,20,000 and cheques worth Rs,26,000 missing from Cashier's. drawer. The complainant, then, went to S.H.O., C-Section, Sukkur to register F.I.R. against them and upon his refusal, the direct complainant was filed.
3. Counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicant No, 1 is a respectable lady, was a Ex- Principal of the School and there is no material against her to support the allegations made in the complaint; therefore, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing her application for quashing proceedings against her.
4. Counsel for the respondent No, 1, on the other hand, argued that the Complainant has fully implicated the applicants; therefore, their application was rightly dismissed.
5. We have noted that even in the complaint, the applicant No,1 is not shown to be armed with any weapon. The allegation that she ordered the other co-accused to kidnap respondent No, 1 and the other Prosecution witnesses namely Pervez, Noshad and Zeeshan Sadiq is belied by another statement of the respondent No,1 himself, that was recorded on 15-5-2008, wherein he, in Paragraph 4 has himself stated that the applicant No, 1, on the date of incident, came with the Police and asked the Police to arrest the complainant. This fact clearly shows that there was no instigation of kidnapping but it were the Police personnel who came in a Police Mobile and on the complaint of the applicant No,1, allegedly arrested the complainant and his two colleagues. In absence of any allegation that applicant No,1 was carrying any weapon or she ordered kidnapping of complainant party, no case, as alleged by the complainant, is made out. Furthermore, the complainant has himself stated that Police arrested them and after two hours he was released.
6. From the complaint, it is also evident that after two hours, when the complainant came back to the School, none of the accused persons were in occupation of the School. This fact, too, belies the allegation that the applicant No,1 intended to take over the control of the Saint Savior School and College.
7. In view of such material on record, there was no likelihood of conviction of the applicant No, 1; therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting her application under section 265-K, Cr .P .C.
8. Vide our short Order dated 6-10-2010, we quashed the proceedings initiated through Direct Complaint No,143 of 2008 against the applicant No, I in the Anti-Terrorism Court,. Sukkur, and these are the reasons for the same.