SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby an order of the learned magisterial/trial court, made on 27.10.2010 was set aside and the complaint-case filed by Muhammad Bashir (petitioner herein) was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that Muhammad Bashir (petitioner)got lodged case- FIR. No,191/2010, dated 30.7.2010. under sections 382, 337-H(2), 148, 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Arooti District Toba Tek Singh with the contention that Khair Din and others (respondents Nos.1 to 20), joined by seven unknown persons, all armed with firearms, dandas and sotas trespassed on his agricultural land at about 8.00 p.m. on 21.4.2010 and forcibly harvested the wheat and barseem crops by means of a harvester and sickles; he reached there and showed them a copy of the injunctive order, issued by the civil court so as to stop them from their illegal act but they tore it apart and refused to listen to him and his companions, who had also reached there then; the accused made firing at the spot and took away the harvested crops on a tractor-trolley and a camel-cart; he moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia and obtained the order for registration of a case against the accused.
This case was found false during the course of investigation and a cancellation . report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared by the investigating officer on 10.8.2010, which, as per learned counsel for the parties, was concurred with by the learned area magistrate later on. The petitioner/complainant filed a private-complaint against the above said individuals, which was admitted to regular hearing on 27.10.2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamalia (camp at Peer Mehal), District Toba Tek Singh and all the respondents impleaded therein were summoned under section 204, Cr.P.C. to stand trial therein. One of the respondents filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court which was accepted on 13.1.2011 and the impugned order therein, was set aside. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cultivated the crops-in-issue beinglessee-in- possession of the agricultural land, which was leased out to him by the FESCO (WAPDA) from time to time; the petitioner filed a private-complaint against the respondents on 8.9.2010 and adduced incriminating cursory evidence under sections 200, 202, Cr.P.C. against them, which prima-facie connected them with the crime alleged; though learned area magistrate had cancelled the petitioner's FIR case in an earlier development, yet order passed by the learned trial court on 27.10.2010 under section 204, Cr.P.C. was sustainable by all means as it was based on supportive statement of the complainant (petitioner herein) and identical cursory statements of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Siddique; the impugned order has been passed by making deeper evaluation of the evidence, which couldn't have been resorted to at this stage; the petitioner though does not have any revenue record in support of his contention, yet oral statements produced by him at the preliminary stage sufficiently proved his stance of having grown the harvested crops, and the crime committed by the respondents.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 20 has submitted that the petitioner's contention was extensively investigated and found false by the police, which led to preparation of a cancellation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. on 10.8.2010 by them, having been subsequently agreed to by the learned area magistrate; the occurrence narrated by the petitioner had not taken place at all and he fabricated it falsely only to pressurize the respondents and make them surrender before his clever tactical moves; the impugned order entails the sound reasons, hence, it may by sustained.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General Punjab looked inclined to support the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents and he submitted that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, hence, this petition may be dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record including the impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner's claim of having sown the wheat and barseem crops, allegedly harvested by the respondents on 21.4.2010, is not supported by any revenue record nor could he hint at the evidence so as to establish his claim of being a lessee in-possession of the agricultural land, which originally belonged to the Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (FESCO/WAPDA). His contention as contained in FIR No,191/2010 (supra) was found false during the course of investigation as he failed to produce any incriminating evidence against the accused, who are the respondents herein, which led to cancellation thereof by the learned area magistrate as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and admitted by the petitioner's learned counsel. They did not, however produce a copy of the order of the learned area magistrate.
7. There can be no cavil to the idea that a private-complaint subsequently brought by the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. could not be dismissed merely on the ground that on that very cause of action, the complainant's case got lodged by him through FIR had failed the test of investigation, as the circumstances would not attract the provisions of double jeopardy as laid down by section 403, Cr.P.C. The private complaint before a judicial magistrate would certainly proceed independently on its own merits as regulated by Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, Chapter XIX and Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The issuance of process to the respondent(s) shall take place under section 204, Cr.P.C. which envisages that if in the opinion of the court, taking cognizance of offence, there is sufficient grounds for proceeding ahead and the case appears to be one in which, according to the fourth column of the second schedule, a summons should be issued in the first instance, it shall issue the summons for the attendance of the accused. The term 'sufficient ground' is not a vague or hollow proposition of law nor does it mean by any stretch of imagination that summons or a warrant should invariably issue for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before the court. In every FIR case or a private-complaint-case instituted under section 200, Cr.P.C.
8. The petitioner showed himself a lessee of the FESCO/WAPDA and allegedly cultivated the land- in-issue in the said capacity but he did not hint at a speck of corroboratory evidence in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vociferously argued that the petitioner made the highest bid in an open auction to win possession of the said agricultural land on lease, but he could not show or refer to any documentary evidence in this regard. A couple of receipts, that he placed on the record are deficient and lend little support to his claim of being a lessee of the disputed land on the day of the alleged occurrence. He could not show any Khasra Girdawari or record of rights to establish the claim of being the possessor and tiller thereof. He admittedly did not challenge the order of the learned area magistrate, whereby the above-said FIR case was cancelled. The civil suit, which he had instituted had been dismissed years before by the learned civil court concerned.
The impugned order has been passed in accordance with the settled principles of law on the subject and the dispensation of criminal justice. No illegality appears to have been committed by the learned revisional court in making the impugned order, hence, it does not call for interference.
9. For the discussion supra, the instant petition being meritless is dismissed.