' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Petitioner Haji Jameel Hussain has filed this criminal revision under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. Against the order dated 1-2-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan (respondent No,1), through which private complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed, without summoning respondents Nos.3 to 7.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged F.I.R. No,221 dated 12-5-2006 registered under sections 395/412, P.P.C. At Police Station Mumtaz Abad District Multan.
' The allegation in the said F.I.R. Was that respondents while armed with fire arm weapons along with 5/6 unknown persons gave beating to the petitioner and brought him out of the car and snatched Nokia Mobile Phone along with identity card, cash of Rs, 2-lacs and car. According to the F.I.R. Respondents wanted the return of dishonoured cheques issued by them to the petitioner on different dates. After registration of the case police submitted incomplete challan against respondents Nos.4 and 7 but subsequently, after completion, of the investigation police submitted cancellation report before the Illaqa Magistrate. Illaqa Magistrate on 1-2-2008 agreed with the cancellation report. It is worth-mentioning here that during the process of investigation, petitioner filed a private complaint in which the same Illaqa Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 1-2-2008 which was challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition.
' Present revision petition was decided by this Court on 23-2-2010 and the matter was referred back to the learned Illaqa Magistrate to proceed with the private complaint in accordance with law after assessing evidence produced by the petitioner in the private case. Respondents challenged said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Criminal Petition No, 192-L of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2-11-2010 set aside the order dated 23-2-2010 passed by this Court and the matter was remanded to this court to decide the same afresh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Illaqa Magistrate had wrongly relied upon the cancellation report while dealing with the private complaint. Further contends that the petitioner being dissatisfied by the conduct of the police filed a private complaint while producing independent witnesses but learned Magistrate while relying upon his order in cancellation report dismissed the said private complaint without giving any plausible reasons; that learned Illaqa Magistrate is not supposed to go beyond the evidence produced in the private complaint.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that against the order of the Magistrate, petitioner has directly filed criminal revision before this Court which is not maintainable and he has to file the said revision before the learned Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr.P.C.; that although, this Court can see the legality and propriety of the order of any inferior Court but section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Was added only to give revisional powers to Sessions Judge, and Sessions Judge is having the same power which the High Court enjoys.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Order sheet reveals that on 27-10-2008, in this Criminal revision notices to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were issued.
On 5-1-2010 Syed Muzammal Hussain Bokhari, Advocate for respondents filed his power of attorney and requested for an adjournment. Thereafter this matter was taken up on 23-2-2010 and on the said date, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this Court decided the revision on 23-2-2010 after hearing the petitioner. Respondents challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Surprisingly, they had not agitated the point of jurisdiction before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only agitated that the order was passed by this Court without hearing them. It is also a circumstance that on this very ground the matter was remanded to this Court to decide the matter afresh and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed this Court to decide the present criminal revision. In obedience to the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I proceed to decide this matter.
On 1-2-2008 the learned Magistrate agreed with the cancellation report and op the same day while relying upon the said order he also B dismissed the private complaint without summoning the respondents at its preliminary stage. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,740 of 2008 while challenging orders of learned Illaqa Magistrate in the cancellation report and in the private complaint. But said writ petition was withdrawn on 2-7-2008 for filing separate writ petitions as two orders were challenged in the said writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,560-M-08 while challenging the order of the Illaqa Magistrate in the cancellation report and the present criminal revision against the order of learned Illaqa Magistrate in the priv4te complaint. On 23-2-2010 instant revision petition was allowed by this Court. Learned counsel did not seriously press Criminal Miscellaneous No,560-M-2010 and the same was dismissed.
Apparently both revision and Criminal Miscellaneous No,560-M-08 were filed before this Court in order to avoid conflicting judgments.
Although, the petitioner was having a remedy of filing a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, but he directly approached this Court but this does not mean that where the Court reaches to a positive conclusion, that a particular order passed by the subordinate criminal court amounted to an abuse of process of the Court, it would be powerless to rectify injustice. High Court in exercising its powers of a Superintendent and control conferred by Article 203 of the Constitution is competent to correct any order passed by the subordinate Court in violation of the law. Section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Was added only to remove the burden on the shoulders of the High Court and these powers were given to the Sessions Court for the said purpose. Both the Courts have concurrent revisional jurisdiction. It is provided in Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that the High Court shall supervise and control all the Courts subordinate to it. It is open to any person to move this Court on its revisional side and C the High Court can even on its own motion, in the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called by itself or which has been put up for orders or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, proceed to inquire into the matter in order to satisfy itself as to regularity of any such proceedings. In my humble view, if order of any Subordinate Court is patently illegal and the same was brought into notice of this Court, this Court can correct the same while invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
6. The question arises whether the order of learned Magistrates in the present case, while dismissing the complaint was legal or patently illegal. The complainant being dissatisfied by the conduct of the police had filed a private complaint. The object of the private complaint is to ensure transparency and the satisfaction of the complainant. Learned Illaqa Magistrate while dismissing the private complaint observed that the witnesses have supported the existence of the occurrence but while relying upon his order of cancellation report dismissed the private complaint. While dealing with the private complaint, after recording the cursory evidence the Court is not expected to examine the material minutely. It was not the stage where the material available on the record is assessed in-depth but to assess as to whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of the process. After recording of the cursory evidence the Court has to assess the evidence produced before it by the complainant and decide whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and at this stage it is not necessary for the complainant to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt as required during the trial. Requisite conditions listed in section 204, Cr.P.C. Are the presence of the sufficient ground and the satisfaction of the Court to be ascertained from the facts placed before it. Section 204 Cr.P.C. Provides for formation of the opinion of the Court taking cognizance of the offence and the availability of the sufficient ground for proceeding. Expression sufficient ground used in section 204, Cr.P.C. Means the presence of fact or evidence prima facie constituting the offence to enable the Court to issue the process. The accused declared innocent by the Investigating Agency even in the successive investigation can be summoned by any Court in a private complaint but for that purpose the Court cannot go into the deep merits of the case but to form opinion from the tentative assessment of the evidence. In order to proceed under section 204, Cr.P.C. The Court has to see the cursory evidence produced before the Court and cannot refer any other evidence which is not available in the said private complaint. While dismissing complaint learned Illaqa Magistrate had wrongly relied upon his observation in the order passed in the cancellation report. Although, he observed that witnesses produced by the complainant supported the existence of the occurrence but erroneously dismissed the private complaint without giving a plausible reasoning. The impugned order dated 1-2-2008 passed by learned Magistrate is patently illegal.
7. Due to the above mentioned reasons, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 1-2-2008 passed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate in the private complaint titled "Haji Jameel Hussain v. Raees-ur-Rehman etc." is set aside and Illaqa Magistrate is directed to decide the said private complaint in accordance with law after assessing the evidence produced by the petitioner in the said private complaint.