1. SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Bux, through instant petition, has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and impugned order dated 02.11.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Ghotki, whereby summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer under "B" class, was approved.
2. 2.Relevant facts spelt out from instant petition are that petitioner lodged FIR No,61 of 2015, on 18.09.2015, at 1545 hours at P.S. Sarhad, alleging that on 31.08.2015, he, his son Jan Muhammad and brother Muhammad Soomar, were, on the way leading to Ghotki and at about 12-00 noon time, when they reached near Cadet College, suddenly three accused persons duly armed intercepted them. Accused Imamuddin challenged the complainant party that why they had quarreled with them on matrimonial affairs. On his instigation, accused Ali and Hafizullah caused kicks and fists blows to them and stolen away Rs,1500/- from his pocket, while accused Hafizullah made a fire- shot which was missed, hence instant petition.
3. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law settled by the superior Courts; that learned Magistrate has considered the statements of independent witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer and same could not be considered at this juncture; that learned Court has not discussed the facts of the case mentioned in FIR while passing impugned order; that a case regarding the custody of minor Farzana was filed before the Family Court, which is still sub-judice; that impugned order may be set aside and Investigating Officer may be directed to submit Challan in accordance with law.
4. 4.While controverting above submissions, learned AAG and learned APG supported the impugned order and contended that averments of FIR could not be believed as stated therein; that Civil Misc.
5. Appeal No,05 of 2011 filed by petitioner against accused persons was dismissed on 24.09.2013, by Additional District Judge, Ghotki; that parties are disputed with each other and petitioner only to settle their accounts of enmity has lodged instant FIR against the accused and instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record properly.
7. 6.Perusal of the record emanates that the factum of animosity of parties is reflected from the averments of the FIR. Petitioner had also lodged FIR Nos,38 of 2014 and 88 of 2014, at P.S. Sarhad against the same accused including their relatives. Subsequently, petitioner also filed a direct complaint against same accused before the Court of learned II-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Ghotki. It is also pertinent to mention that accused Imamuddin also filed Cr. Misc.
8. Application No,1893 of 2014, regarding causing of harassment and same was also disposed of by the Court of II-Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki directing the SSP to ensure protection of accused as well as not to lodge false FIRs against them. It has further transpired that complainant has lodged instant FIR with the delay of 13 days for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by him. No empty was recovered from the spot nor any injury was sustained by the petitioner and his companions nor any medical certificate has been placed on record by petitioner to substantiate the allegations of maltreatment.
7. Admittedly, parties are under litigation for the custody of baby Farzana and accused are already facing litigations pending before the Courts and the allegations of stealing of Rs,1500/- from the pocket of petitioner after a quarrel does not attract prudent mind for the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, petitioner has failed to point out any impartial attitude of the Investigating Officer that he had not carried out investigation by fair means or he had not recorded statements of his witnesses properly or recorded statements incorrectly or did not consider the documentary evidence produced by him connecting the accused regarding commission of the alleged offence. It is well settled that Magistrate has ample powders under section 173, Cr.P.C. to scan the entire material placed before him in shape of summary report by the Investigating Officer including bereavements of FIR, statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and other relevant material and pass appropriate order by applying his judicial mind either accepting or declining said report. Magistrate should, not follow the summary report as a routine matter as deciding authority is exclusively conferred upon the Magistrate, and investigating agency has no such authority whatsoever to decide the guilt or innocence of accused under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Police Act, 1861, Police Order, 2002 and Rules framed there under. Reliance is placed on the case of Anwar Shamim v. State (2010 SCM R 1791). Bare perusal of the impugned order transpires that learned Magistrate has discussed all the involved aspects and passed the speaking order, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference, hence same stands E maintained.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, instant petition stands dismissed being devoid of any substance, however, petitioner is at liberty to file direct complaint for redressal of his grievances, if he is advised so. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.