SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J--- Through the captioned Criminal Revision Application under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C, applicant Mst. Naheed has impugned order dated 29.12.2010, passed by the Court of learned III- Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby direct complaint filed by her was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts spelt out of the instant revision application are that applicant filed direct complaint against respondents Nos.1 and 2, narrating that there is an old dispute of complainant with respondents over matrimonial affairs who served tea mixed with poisonous substance and committed theft from her house and she lodged FIR No.164 of 2010 at Police Station, Therhi, but subsequently the said FIR was disposed of under "C" class and such summary was approved by the Court of III- Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur. It is further averred that on 16.10.2010, at 1:00 a.m (night) applicant, her mother Mst. Bashiran Rajput, sister Aisha Rajput and brother Ramesh were sleeping in the house, when 10 police officials and 6 other persons with muffled faces entered into their house by scaling over the wall and abused her and robbed golden ornaments and cash of Rs.10,000/- from the box. Respondents Amir Bux and Imran armed with pistols over-powered and forced her for marriage, whereupon she made hue and cry which attracted mohallah people and police officials left the complainant but did not return robbed articles and cash. Complainant approached the concerned police but police refused to lodge her FIR.
3. Learned Counsel for applicant contended that learned trial Court dismissed the direct complaint without examining the material properly; that impugned order being illegal liable to be set-aside with directions to the trial Court to frame the charge against the respondents and record statements of complainant and her witnesses.
4. Learned APG candidly supported the impugned order, and files report submitted by SHO Police Station, Babarloi which is taken on record and contended that notices were issued to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but they have shifted long ago to some unknown place to Punjab Province and statements of two witnesses of the locality are also annexed along with copies of their CNICs; that statements of witnesses Mst. Bashiran and Mst. Aisha were recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur under Section 202, Cr.P.C., whereby they have changed the entire story as such considering their statements and averments of complaint, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the direct complaint vide impugned order.
5. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for complainant as well as learned APG emanate that applicant filed direct complaint before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur against respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with 10 unknown police officials and 6 unknown private accused persons under Sections 395, 220, 506/2, 504, 365/B, 511, P.P.C. Learned Trial Court sent said complaint to the Court of III Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur for holding preliminary enquiry and directed the applicant to appear before said Court along with her witnesses. Learned Judicial Magistrate recorded statements of applicant's witnesses namely Mst. Aisha and Mst. Bushiran on 06.11.2010.
Mst. Aisha did not depose against police officials as well as unknown persons, however, she implicated both respondents for taking away gold ornaments from the box, while Mst. Bashiran in her statement had not implicated both the private respondents, and stated that some police personnel entered into her house and took away their gold ornaments.
6. It is significant to mention that as per report submitted by S.H.O. Police Station, Babarloi that both private respondents have left their houses and shifted long ago to Punjab Province to some unknown place. Even the applicant present in Court is not aware of the whereabouts of both the respondents. It is worthwhile to mention that during the proceedings of complaint, notices were not issued to the respondents by the trial Court. Even otherwise, FIR lodged earlier by the complainant was also disposed of by the police due to insufficient evidence.
7. Perusal of the averments of complaint and statements of both the witnesses reflect that there are series of material contradictions and they had narrated different facts and circumstances which are fatal to the allegations leveled by the complainant. The very purpose of holding preliminary enquiry is to thrash out the truth or falsehood of the allegations leveled by the complainant in complaint without any intervention and participation of accused at the initial stage of the proceedings. Issuance of notice to accused during the process of preliminary enquiry is stranger to the provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C. Consequently, trial Court has rightly not issued notice/ summons to the A respondents during the proceeding of preliminary enquiry and passing of dismissal order. Furthermore, trial Court after minutely consideration of statement of complainant recorded on oath and statements of her witnesses, has observed that no prima facie case was made out against the respondents. When there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further, trial Court was justified to dismiss the complaint. Thus, issuance of notices to the respondent during the adjudication of instant criminal revision is also not mandatory when at the first hand notice was issued to learned APG and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for applicant and learned APG, complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case for taking cognizance against the respondents regarding the alleged offence.
8. Consequently, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has passed an appropriate order after considering all the relevant aspects of the complaint which is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, hence same is maintained. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, instant criminal revision application stands dismissed being devoid of any legal substance.