' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Through this Criminal Revision applicants Hajan and Sarwar have called in question the order dated 1-11-2013 passed by learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) in Sessions Case No,749 of 2011 State v. Hajjan and others arising out of F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 Police Station A-Section Dadu under sections 365-B, 496-A, 506/2, P.P.C., dismissing the application of the applicants filed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Luqman in pursuance of order passed by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Dadu appeared at Police Station A-Section, Dadu and lodged F.I.R. That applicant/accused. Sarwar along with other accused persons entered his house during night time and on gun-point abducted his daughter Mst. Sapna aged about 13/14 years.
3. After submission of challan, the trial Court framed charge against the accused and recorded the evidence of abductee Mst. Sapna. Meanwhile the applicants filed application for their acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed with the following observations:-- "Moreover, the case was proceeded by this Court, wherein the statement of abductee Mst. Sapna was recorded on 25-9-2013, wherein she categorically stated that all the applicants/accused abducted her from the house of the complainant however, she took advantage and left the house of accused persons and came to his father. Since the only one witness has been examined while the remaining material witnesses including complainant are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the charge against the accused is groundless and there is no probability of being convicted for any offence, therefore application merits no consideration which is dismissed. The complainant is in attendance, hence learned counsel for the applicants/accused to proceed with the case in Order to expeditious disposal."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the case is false and fabricated. No such incident of abduction of Mst. Sapna has taken place, the true fact is that there was dispute between the father and mother of Mst. Sapna, her mother filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and the applicants were supporting her mother, therefore, the complainant has lodged a false F.I.R.
In order to teach them lesson. Learned counsel has further contended that' at the time of alleged incident Mst. Sapna was residing with, her mother Mst. Malika which is evident from the contents of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-382 of 2013 filed before this Court and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,330 of 2011 filed before Sessions Judge, Jamshoro at. Kotri and orders passed thereon, as such, allegation of abduction of Mst. Sapna from the house of complainant is false resulted from enmity. In -these circumstances if the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is recorded even then there would be no probability of the accused being convicted. He requests that applicants may be acquitted.
5. Learned A.P.G. Has opposed this Criminal Revision application and has contended that the trial Court has recorded the evidence of abductee Mst. Sapna wherein she has fully implicated the applicants with the specific allegation that she was abducted by them. The other witnesses are yet to be examined and without recording their evidence it cannot be held that there is no probability of the accused being convicted, hence the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of applicants under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The impugned order is passed in accordance with law, therefore, this Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, which reflected that abductee Mst. Sapna was examined before the trial Court on 25-9-2013 she has fully implicated the applicants in evidence of her abduction. She has also narrated the facts of her rescue from the clutches of the applicants. The other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and without an opportunity to prosecution to examine its witnesses it would not be appropriate to hold that if entire prosecution evidence is brought on record even then there would be no probability of the accused being convicted.
7. I have also perused the contents of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-382 of 2013 and.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,330 of 2011 referred by learned counsel for the applicants which shows that both the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications were filed after the incident of abduction of Mst. Sapna, the said applications and the orders passed thereon are not the part of investigation nor made part of the proceedings pending adjudication before trial Court, therefore, the applicants will not be benefited of said documents at the stage of deciding the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. However, the applicants would be at liberty to produce the aforesaid documents in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Which will be considered by the trial Court keeping the same in juxtaposition with the prosecution evidence at the time of final adjudication of the case.
8. The object of enactment of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was to save an accused person from malicious prosecution and recourse to section 265-K, Cr.P.C. For acquittal of accused though can be made at any stage of the case, however it cannot be pressed into service to stifle the prosecution, parties to the litigation should be given fair opportunity to place on record their respective cases.
9. In view of above the trial Court has rightly declined the acquittal of applicants under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The impugned order did not suffer from any material infirmity or illegality, as such, it does not require any interference by this Court. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.