1. ' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Through this Crl. Misc. Application, the applicants have assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 25.4.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Lakhi in Crime No,23/2015, Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah under sections 324, 392 and 34, P.P.C., whereby the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate passed impugned order on summary submitted before him in 'B' class by the I.O. Of the case and he did not agree with the report of I.O. And by taking cognizance ordered for challaning the case against the accused persons.
2. ' Facts necessary for the disposal of this case are that one Abdul Jabbar lodged report against the applicants by stating that on 26.3.2015 at about 06:00 p.m, he went to the shop of the accused Aijaz Pathan in village Jamra where accused Aijaz son of not known, Shoukat son of not known and Irshad son of not known all by caste Pathan were available. The complainant demanded his outstanding amount from them to which accused Aijaz became annoyed and instigated co- accused Shoukat and Irshad not to spare the complainant and kill him, who took out TT pistols from the folds of their trousers. In the meantime accused Shoukat fired from his TT pistol at complainant which was missed. However, the accused persons by dint of weapons forcibly snatched Rs,67,000/-, one mobile phone and watch from him. He raised cries on which PW Mushtaque Ahmed and Israr Ahmed came there. On reaching the said P.Ws accused ran away from the place of incident.
3. ' It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the case against the applicants is false, in fact no incident has taken place in a fashion as alleged by the complainant party. He further submits that during the investigation of the case, I.O. Conducted enquiry and came to this conclusion that no case was made out, therefore, he has submitted his report in 'B' class before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate for its disposal which was not agreed by the Magistrate and learned Magistrate without assigning any cogent reason ordered for submission of the challan.
4. ' None present on behalf of respondent No,2, who is complainant of the case. Whereas, learned D.P.G has supported the impugned order by mentioning that learned Magistrate is fully competent to agree or disagree with the police report as the case may be.
5. ' I have given my anxious thought to the contention raised at the bar and gone through the material placed on case file.
6. ' Perusal of record shows that accused are nominated by the complainant in his FIR with their names and specific role. Eye-witnesses of the case have also fully supported the version of the complainant in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements. Investigating Officer has simply relied on the statements of Defence witnesses during investigation and submitted the summary of the case under 'B' class. I.O. Did not weigh the version of the complainant and his witnesses in which they have fully implicated the accused persons nominated in the FIR. In the case of Mst. Qudrat Bibi v.
7. Muhammad Iqbal and another 2003 SCM R 68, it is held that ipse dixit opinion of the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted to exonerate the accused from the commission of the offence. I am also supported by another authority in the case of Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan PLD 2013 Supreme Court 401, in which it is mentioned that when trial Court had taken cognizance of a case, FIR could not be quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challaned therein was to be determined by the trial Court itself. It is further held in that case that accused persons in such circumstances, could avail the remedy under sections 249-A, or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Whatever the case may be to seek his premature acquittal, if the chdrge was found to be groundless or there was no possibility of his conviction. Even otherwise, it is also settled principle of law that Magistrate is not bound with the report submitted before him by the Investigating Officer as he has to apply his judicious mind while deciding the summary after considering the material points.
8. ' In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case no illegality and incorrectness have been found in the impugned order. Learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has appreciated all the points involved in the case, I therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case dismiss this Crl. Misc. Application along with listed applications being devoid of merits.