SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. -- The petitioner, Muhammad Riaz has questioned, through this revision petition, the validity of order dated 6.5.2014, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge Faisalabad dismissed the private complaint filed by him for offences under sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.C. against Arif, Rauf, Amir Raza, Abid, Zafar Iqbal and Rehmat (respondents No,2 to 7).
2. Relevant facts of the case are that Waris Ali and Mst.Naziran Bibi, who were husband and wife inter-se, were murdered at 8.00 p.m. on 19.8.2013 by Sarfraz son of Mughla etc. in the backdrop of their love marriage with each other, regarding which FIR No,777/13, dated 19.8.2013, under sections 302, 148, 149, 109 P.P.C., was registered at Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad, with Ahmad Khan and Abid Ali being eye-witnesses thereof, at the instance of Arif Ali, real brother of Waris Ali; the police declared some of the accused guilty and some innocent, therefore, Arif Ali (respondent No,2) filed a private complaint on 18.2.2014 against all the accused of the FIR case, namely Sarfraz son of Mughla, Javed Iqbal, Yasin, Sajid, Asghar, Sarfraz son of Muhammad Hussain and Nausher, last three being unknown in the FIR and named later on by the complainant during investigation; in parallel to it, Muhammad Riaz, real son of Mst. Naziran Bibi (deceased) also instituted a private complaint against the complainant party of the FIR case on 20.2.2014 with the allegation that alleged occurrence of murder of the deceased-duo had taken place in his presence, beside Zaheer Khan;, he produced cursory evidence before the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad), which dismissed the complaint through the impugned order on 6.5.2014 by holding that no case was made out, against the respondents- accused. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed injudiciously in sheer disregard to the incriminating evidence produced by the petitioner/complainant under section 202 Cr.P.C., which makes the impugned order no less than a mockery of law on the subject; the F.I.R.-case had been manoeuvred by Arif Ali (respondent No.2), Abid Ali (respondent No,5) and Ahmad Khan by showing themselves as witnesses of the occurrence, along with Aamir Raza (respondent No,4) and Zafar Iqbal (respondent No,6) being the witnesses of abetment, so as to distort the facts and save themselves, beside their co-accused Rauf and Rehmat (respondents Nos,3 and 7) from consequences of the brutal murder of the petitioner's mother Mst.Naziran Bibi and Waris Ali; the petitioner and his co-witnesses tried their utmost to bring real facts of the case on the record of F.I.R., but no one listened to them and various applications moved by them went unavailed, where after the petitioner filed a complaint against the said murderers, but it has been dismissed by the trial court through the impugned order, which has caused serious prejudice to him; the impugned order is illegal, therefore, it may be set aside and the petitioner's complaint-case may be resuscitated.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted the. court, in absence of the respondents' learned counsel by contending that the impugned order has been passed quite judiciously and it meets all requirements of the law, therefore, it may be sustained.
5. Learned trial court, in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, has recorded reasons, whereby it considered the private-complaint of the petitioner/complainant unsustainable, which are cogently impressive and reasonably worked out. The petitioner, who is real son of Mst.Naziran Bibi (deceased), according to police record of case-F.I.R. No,777/13 (supra), joined investigation for the first time on 25.11.2013 only to tell it to the DSP/SDPO, Circle Saddar Faisalabad, the then investigating officer, that he learnt it through a phone-call from Muhammad Yasin accused that he along with his co-accused had murdered the deceased couple, therefore, he should not come back from Khunda Morr, Pakka Qila, where he had gone to see his in-laws, 10/15 ,days before and that's all. He, however, claimed himself to be innocent then: His co-witness, Zuhray Khan son of Sannata, who rendered cursory evidence as P.W.2 under section 202 Cr.P.C, joined investigation of the FIR case thrice, firstly on 7.9.2013, secondly 23.9.2013 and lastly on 25.11,2013, but he did not dub himself an eye-witness of the occurrence on any of the occasions and simply talked about the innocence of some of the accused of the FIR case. His various statements in this regard have been recorded by the investigating officer in the body of the case-diaries. In juxtaposition to it, respondent Arif Ali, who is real brother of Waris Ali (deceased) reported the matter with promptitude, which is manifestly evident from the tenor of FIR No,777/13 (supra), having been recorded at 9.25 p.m. on 19.8.2013, within 1-1/2 hours of the alleged occurrence, that took place at 8.00 p.m., the same day. In this FIR, respondent Arif Ali being complainant thereof, gave every bit of the alleged occurrence to show as to who murdered the luckless husband and wife find who abetted the crime and in what manner. The FIR case was investigated twice by two different investigating officers and it stood the test of investigation, though some of the accused mentioned therein were found innocent by them. This record was available before the learned trial court, which it must have duly examined before passing the impugned order.
6. Learned trial court has tentatively taken care of all the material available and made the impugned order flawlessly. It was the duty and obligation of the trial court to scrutinize contents of the complaint, nature of allegation made therein, supporting material in support of accusations, the object intended to be achieved, the possibility of victimization and harassment, the other relevant record, if any, to ensure itself that no innocent person against whom allegations were levelled should suffer from the ordeal of time consuming and cumbersome process of law and it did its duty well. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zafar and others v.
Umar Hayat and others (2010 SCM R 1816) that "it is also settled principle of law that the provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204, Cr. P. C., if read together would show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the Legislature which showed its such intention by using the words "if any" and "sufficient grounds for any" in section 203, Cr.P.C. and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. See Abdul Wahab Khan's case (2000 SCMR 1904). It is also settled principle of law that everyone has a right to approach the court for redressal of grievances but the same is subject to condition that sufficient grounds for issuance of process is made out." It can easily be gathered from the attending circumstances of the case that no sufficient ground was available for summoning the respondents and it was un-mistakenly so understood by the learned trial court for passing the impugned order, which appears to have been made with proper care and judicious application of mind. It is in consonance with the dictum laid down by the apex court in Muhammad Saleem's case, reported as 2001 SCM R 1738. The delay of about five months in filing the complaint has rightly been taken care of by the trial court in the impugned order. It is a settled principle of law that although no such limitation is prescribed in criminal prosecution, yet, it is undeniable, the longer a complaint is delayed, the lesser would be the chances of its being true, more particularly, when it is based on oral evidence. The afore-noted judgment of the apex court emits light in this context as well.
7. Filing of the complaint-in-issue by the petitioner belatedly looked nothing but a conscious attempt on his part to defeat the process of law, already set in motion by respondent Arif Ali through his FIR and then by his private-complaint against the aforementioned accused, whose trial kas substantially progressed and a number of witnesses stood recorded by the trial court since then. It was a mischievous transaction and rightly nipped in bud by the learned trial court through the impugned order, which is maintainable by all means.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed.