1. ' This revision petition has been filed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaf farabad dated 11.12.2014, whereby the trial Court while disagreeing with the Ikhtatami' report, directed the investigating agency to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and submit a challan before the competent Court.
2. ' The brief facts forming the background of this revision petition are that a case in offences under Sections 302 & 34, APC was registered against the accused-petitioners and co-accused-persons at City Police Station Muzaf farabad on 28.01.2012 on the comp laint of Sirajdeen, Complainant-Respondent No. 1. After investigation, the police submitted an `Ikhtatami' report before Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaf farabad stating therein that during investigation it was found that Sheraz, deceased, who was Gujjar by caste, had fell in love with Mst. Kirran Bibi d/o Azmat Hussain Shah, who belongs to Syed family , and this fact came in the notice of Mst.
3. Safina Bibi, the mother of Mst. Kirran Bibi. She also saw her daughter Mst. Kirran Bibi and Sheraz together .
4. Thereupon she took Sheraz with her and proceeded towards the parents of Sheraz. When Sheraz realized that the whole story will be exposed before his parents, he could not handle pressure and feeling failure in love he jumped into the river and committed suicide. Hence, the report of non-existence of occurrence is submitted.
5. ' The Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaf farabad while disagreein g with the police report directed the investigating agency to dispose of the case in accordance with law and submit a challan before the competent Court vide its order dated 1 1.12.2 014; hence, this revision petition.
6. ' Syed Waqar Hussain Kazmi, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners vehemently contended that a false case was registered against the petitioners and co-accused. He further submitted that according to the complainant, his son was abducted and kept in starvation due to which hedied and later on was thrown in the river, whereas he committed suicide by jumping into the river. The learned Counsel pointed out that the trial Court did not consider the medical report, the statemen ts of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And the investigation conducted by Respondents Nos. 3 & 4. The learned Counsel contended that the Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 after conducting thorough investigation of the case have correctly arrived at the conclusion that the occurrence did not occur in the manner as alleged by the complainant, but the trial Court failed to cons ider this aspect of the case and wrongly ordered them to submit challan before the competent Court. The learned Counsel also contended that the petitioners have been prejudiced by the impugned order and no useful purpo se will be served if challan is submitted before the trial Court; therefore , the Court below miserably failed to understand the case and travelled in wrong direction while asking the investiga tion agency to submit challan. The learned Counsel also submitted that the words `viso vigal' have been used in the medical report, which means the death of Sheraz caused due to shock that could be happened during jumping into the river. The learned Counsel finally submitted that by accepting the revision petition, the `Ikhtatami' Report No. 38/2012 may graciously be restored.
7. ' Conversely , Tariq Alain, the learned Assistant Advocate General supported the version put in `Ikhtatamr report, as police version and the complainant requested to decide the case in the light of record.
8. ' I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and cautiously gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment.
9. ' A minute scrutiny of the file reveals that after investigation, the police submitted an `Ikhtatami' report before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaf farabad, which was later on made over to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction for disposal. The said Court while disagreeing with the police report directed the investigating agency to dispose of the case in accordance with law and submit a challan before the competent Court.
10. ' Now it is to be determined whether the trial Court may direct the police for disposing of the case in accordance with law and submit a challan before the trial Court?
11. ' It is well settled law that a report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Is not binding on the Court. Therefore, the Court notwithstanding the recommendation of the Investigation Officer regarding cancellation of case and discharge of the accused from the case, may decline to cancel the case and proceed to take cognizance as provided in Section 190,Cr .P.0 and summon the accused person to face the trial. Section 190, Cr.P.C. Provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon a complaint, (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received by him. Under sub-section (1) of 190, Cr.P.C., when the investigation is completed the police officer is required to forward to the Magistrate a report in the prescribed form. Under sub- section (3) when it appears from the report forwarded under Section 1, that the accused has been released on the bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. It is clear that under Section 3 a Magistrate may agree or may not agree with the police report. However , it does not say what step the Magistrate should take if he disagrees with the police report. If the Magistrate wants to start a proceeding against the accused, he must act under Section 190, Cr .P.C.
12. ' Now, the question is, if the Magistrate disagrees with the report, can he take action under clause (b) against those whose names have been placed under Column 2 of the challan. As already pointed out that the Magistrate is not bound by the report submitted by the Police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. When the said report is received by the Magistrate, the Magistrate on the report itself may not agree with the conclusions reached by the Investigating Officer. There is nothing in Section 190, Cr.P.C. to prevent a Magistrate from taking cognizance of the case under clause (b) in spite of the police report.
13. ' It will be relevant to mention here that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the allegation of complainant is that the accused-petitioner committed murder of his son by starving him to death, whereas the version of defense is that Sheraz, deceased, committed suicide by jumping into the river. Now the question arises whether the `Ikhtatami' report submitted by Police is agreeable without allowing an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its version and without recording evidence from both sides; therefore, how can it be said that the accused- petitioners are innocent, especially in presence of defense version that the victim was being carried towards his parents' house and when they reached on Quaid-e-Azam bridge he getting down from Rickshaw committed suicide by jumping into the river. In such like cases, where the evidence is needed to decide the matter , the report of Investigating Officer for cancellation of the case, cannot be accepted or agreed. The aforesaid view stands fortified from a case reported as Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and another v. Malik Mumtaz Hussain and 4 others ( 1997 SCMR 299 ), wherein it has been opined as under: ' "Reasons given by the learned trial Court for not accepting the report of Investigating Officer for cancellation of the case and discharge of the accused from the case could not he discarded by the learned Judge in Chambers merely on the basis of the report of Investigating Officer. We have examined the reasons assigned by the trial Court for not accepting the report of I.O and we do not find these reasons either perverse, fanciful or arbitrary so as to justify interference by the learned Judge in Chambers in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. The approach of the learned Judge in Chambers was wholly misconceived as the learned Judge made definite observations on the merits of the case without allowing opportunity to the trial Court to record evidence in the case and to examine merits of the case. We, accordingly , allow this appeal, set-aside the order of the learned Judge in Chambers and remand the case to the trial Court to proceed in accord ance with the law in the light of above observations."
14. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the instant case, I arrived at the conclusion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order dated 11.12.2014. Moreover, the trial Court is also empowered under relevant section to take cognizance of the matter in the light of submitted material.
15. ' Resultantly , finding no force in this revision petition it is hereby dismissed.