1. ' Through this petition vires of order dated 12.03.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha have been challenged on the ground that the order impugned herein was without lawful authority and of no legal effect as criminal revision against order passed by the Illaqa Magistrate disagreeing with the report of police for cancellation of case, was not competent.
2. 2.Briefly, the facts leading to present petition are that on complaint lodged by petitioner, a case vide FIR No, 297 dated 12.10.2007 u/S. 365, 148,149.109 PPC at Police Station Sahiwal District Sargodha was registered. After investigation, a report was submitted before Illaqa Magistrate recommending the case for discharge of the accused which was disagreed vide order dated 02.05.2009.
3. Respondents/accused feeling aggrieved filed revision which came up for hearing before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 12.03.2010 which was allowed and order passed by learned Illaqa Magistrate whereby he refused to discharge the accused, was set-aside, hence this petition.
4. 3.Learned counsel contended that order passed by the Magistrate was an administrative order against which revision was not competent, hence, the impugned order passed without jurisdiction was liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on cases titled "Asif Muhammad Sulehri v. ASJ Sialkot and.6 others" (2016 P Cr. LJ 1783), "Sakhawat Ali v. The State and another" (2003 YLR 245), "Hussain Ahmad v. Mst. Irshad Bibi and others" (1997 SCM R 1503) and "Bahadar and another V The State and another" (PLD 1985 SC 62).
5. 4.Learned AAG has, however, supported the impugned judgment and opposed this petition.
6. 5.Heard. Perused.
7. 6.The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner was that revision, petition against order passed by learned Illaqa Magistrate refusing discharge of the accused was not competent, hence, the impugned order was passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge who had no jurisdiction in the matter. It is evident from the record that on the complaint lodged by present petitioner, case was registered. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded which were available on file. Learned Illaqa Magistrate did not agree with the report submitted by police/investigating agency and refused to discharge the accused and cancel the FIR. In the case laws cited by learned counsel for petitioner, it was held that the order passed by the Illaqa Magistrate on the report submitted by investigating officer u/S. 173 Cr.P.C, could not be challenged in revision petition. The contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is supported by the law laid down on the subject.
7. In the above backdrop, this petition is allowed; and impugned order passed by learned Addl.
8. Sessions Judge is set-aside.