ORDER ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J. By virtue of the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Petitioner Muhammad Saghir has impugned the order dated 19-4-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that Mst. Naziran Bibi lodged a private complaint against Muhammad Naveed and others including the present petitioner Muhammad Saghir as respondent No.2 under sections 452/ 364/ 342/ 354/ 148/ 149/337-A(i)/337-L(2)/337-F(i.e) P.P.C., in the court of judicial Magistrate section 30, Hasilpur. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the cursory Statements of the complainant Mst. Naziran Bibi and her witnesses while making the observation that the complainant's contentions prima facie appear to be strong directed the DSP Hasilpur vide order dated 22-12-2010 to hold inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. Mst. Naziran Bibi feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 22-12-2010 assailed it in Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hasilpur on the grounds that after conducting preliminary inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C.
The learned Magistrate was not competent to entrust the private complaint to the DSP to hold a second inquiry into the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties accepted the revision petition vide order dated 19-4-2011 and set aside the order dated 22-12-2010 passed by the Magistrate Section 30, Hasilpur. Saghir Ahmad present petitioner has impugned the order dated 19-4-2011 through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. I have given patient hearing to the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
4. At the out set provision of section 202(1), Cr.P.C. Is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "202. POSTPONMENT OF ISSUE OF PROCESS.---(1) Any Court, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which it is authorized to take cognizance, or which has been sent to it under section 190, subsection (3), or transferred to 'it under section 191 or section 192, may, if it thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case itself or direct an inquiry or investigation to, be made by any Justice of the Peace or by a police officer or by such other person as it thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint".
5. Bare reading of the above referred provision of section, 202(1), Cr.P.C. Makes it crystal clear that it manifests only one preliminary inquiry to be conducted either by the Magistrate himself or direct the inquiry or investigation to be made by any Justice of Peace or by a police officer. In the instant case after examining the complainant and recording the cursory evidence of the P.Ws. And reaching to the conclusion that the contentions raised by the complainant prima facie seems to be strong, there was no occasion at all for the learned Magistrate to direct the DSP to hold further inquiry into the matter. Since the lear ed Magistrate had exercised the first option to inquire into the matter himself therefore there was no justification to adopt the other alternative as well. The order dated 22-12-2010 passed by the learned Magistrate therefore was unjustified, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30.
6. It is also pertinent to mention that the provision of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Contemplates inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as deem appropriate to give effect to any order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case I do not find any legal infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order dated 19-4-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hasilpur. It therefore does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The instant petition is devoid of any merit and thus dismissed leaving the parties to bear their on costs..