The petitioner through the instant revision petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gojra District Toba Tek Singh whereby he summoned the petitioner and others in the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 (Mst.
Shakeela Bibi) under sections 302, 448, 148 and 149 PPC pertaining to an incident reported at Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.05.2012 at about 09:55-pm real brother of the petitioner and husband of respondent No.2 was murdered while he was watering his fields. The version of respondent No.2 is that after the death of her husband the petitioner being her sister-in-law made her stay home to observe her "Iddat" and mala fidely during that period registered a false FIR No.359/2012 registered under section 302 and 34 PPC at Police Station Saddar Gojra against her brothers. After a lapse of nearly more than one year, the petitioner filed a private complaint on 19.07.2013 nominating the respondent No.2 and her other brother Akram as accused. After the murder of her husband, respondent No.2 was informed through reliable sources that actually the petitioner and first wife of the deceased Kalsoom Bibi together hatched a plan and murdered the husband of respondent No.2 as they had litigation pending with the deceased. On 08.08.2012, the respondent No.2 filed an application before the SHO P.S. Saddar Gojra for registration of a case against the petitioner and first wife of the deceased but the application of the petitioner was not entertained. After which she filed an application before the Justice of Peace which was accepted and an order was passed on 14.09.2012 in her favour but the police refused to implement the order so then on 23.02.2015, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under sections 302, 448, 148 and 149 PPC before the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, Gojra.
3. The respondent No.2 then led her preliminary evidence. She produced two witnesses in the Court and herself also appeared in the witness box. After recording of the cursory statements of the witnesses the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra held that the contents of the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 seemed to be prima facie correct and the offences under sections 302, 448, 148 and 149 PPC were made out. After which the petitioner and other nominated accused were summoned in the private complaint to face the trial.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The respondent No.2 admittedly filed an FIR few days after the murder of her husband and the delay has been explained in the preceding paragraph after which she filed a private complaint regarding the same occurrence in which the petitioner and others were nominated as accused.
The private complaint of respondent No.2 was entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the cursory statements of the witnesses were recorded after which the learned Additional Sessions Judge being satisfied by the evidence produced, summoned the petitioner and others under section 204 Cr.P.C. To face the trial.
6. The petitioner admittedly has not filed any application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and has directly challenged the summoning order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge through this criminal revision. This is a murder case and both the parties are closely related to the deceased hence both the parties should be given an opportunity to prove their version by producing their evidence. Reliance is placed upon "Asif Iqbal vs. District & Sessions Judge, Khushab and others" (2011 SCMR 720).
7. The trial Court has powers under section 250 Cr.P.C to punish a complainant filing a false and frivolous application and adequately compensate the accused while acquitting them at trial stage.
This Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 435/439 Cr.P.C. Has to see if the trial Court has committed any illegality or irregularity. On perusing the order impugned it is not found to be neither perverse nor arbitrary. The trial Court has just summoned the petitioner and others and interference at this stage will amount to gaging the proceedings of the case and resultantly depriving the court to consider the evidence produced by the complainant/respondent No.2 and the petitioner, to cross examine the same and explain regarding the evidence against them which will eventually lead the court to determine the actual truth of the case. Reliance is placed upon "Noor Muhammad versus the State and others" (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 9).
8. There is no limitation in filing a private complaint yet the longer the complaint is delayed lesser would be the chance of believing it. The argument of the petitioner that the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 was filed after a considerable delay has no consequence as even the petitioner filed her private complaint after a delay of more than one year nominating the respondent No.2 for the first time as an accused which was accepted. Considering this fact the petitioner should not object, if now the private complaint of respondent No.2 has also been accepted.
9. As reiterated above, the order impugned does not warrant interference at this stage. The revision petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed.