MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---By means of instant Criminal Revision Application, the, applicant Qadir Khan Mandokhail, who is also a practicing lawyer, has assailed Order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, whereby he dismissed Direct Complaint filed by the applicant/complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C.
2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the filing of instant Criminal Revision Application are that applicant filed Complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the proposed accused/respondent No,2 namely Mohsin Abbas is running business in the name and style of Messrs Continental Exports and is dealing the same as Partner/Manager and obtained rebate of billions of rupees from F.B.R., Customs and other government departments on unregistered/ local invoices and has not disclosed the assets. It was further asserted that the proposed accused has opened different business accounts in Pakistan and out of Pakistan on the basis of fake documents in U.B.L. and other banks and has got registered the partnership firm and also setup a firm/business in Korea which was a joint venture between Messrs Continental Exports, Pakistan and Messrs Ahlim Trading Co. Korea with the name and style of Messrs Alcon Trading Co. and the proposed accused has concealed the fact that he is a government employee, despite that he is involved in the business activities of so many business partnerships inside and outside Pakistan. It was further stated in the complaint that the proposed accused has also executed a partnership deed on 20.11.1990 with his brother namely Abul Hassan in the business of import, export and General Order Supplier in the name and style of Messrs Continental Exports on the basis of 50% shares and that he has also obtained the business passport without taking NOC from Pakistan Customs and PIA where he was working and made several trips in different countries including Korea. It was further stated that the Additional Director passport Cell has also initiated a separate inquiry against the proposed accused/respondent No,2.
3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint, the trial Court examined the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. as well as his two witnesses namely, Waheed Shah and Akhlaq Khan under section 202, Cr.P.C. and consequently, vide impugned order, he dismissed the direct complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant is not an aggrieved person to file the said complaint against the proposed accused. The applicant has assailed the said order by way of filing instant Criminal Revision Application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that while passing the impugned order, the trial Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of sections 200 and 203, Cr.P.C. He further contended that the impugned order has been passed in a hasty and mechanical manner without applying judicious mind to the factual as well as legal aspects of the case. He further contended that the locus standi of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent to attract the applicability of the said provision of law. He further contended that while dismissing the complaint, learned trial Judge did not take into consideration that the proposed accused is obtaining rebate of billions of rupees on the basis of unregistered/local invoices. He further contended that the trial Judge also failed to appreciate the fact that although the proposed accused is a government employee despite that by defrauding and concealment of facts, he is carrying on private business through various partnership concerns inside and outside Pakistan. He further contended that the trial Judge also ignored the fact that the proposed accused although being government employee obtained business passport without taking NOC from Pakistan Customs and PIA and in this respect Additional Director FIA has also initiated a separate inquiry against the proposed accused. He lastly prayed for setting aside the impugned order and issuance of direction to the trial Court to proceed with the direct complaint in accordance with the law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the case-law reported in 1989 CLC 1805 [Karachi], 2011 PCr.L.J 774, PLD 2002 SC 687 and 2012 M LD 814.
5. The Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan and Deputy Prosecutor General have supported the Impugned Judgment/Order, thus have opposed the instant Criminal Revision Application.
6. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,2/proposed accused, while supporting the impugned order, contended that the same has been passed in accordance with law after properly taking into consideration factual and legal aspects of the case. He further contended that the allegations leveled by the applicant in the direct complaint are false and of general nature.
According to him, in fact, deceased father of respondent. No,2 namely Abdul Rahman was carrying on business and Messrs Continental Exports was formed by him and after his death respondent's brother Abdul Hassan has been carrying on the said business. He further contended that the applicant has personal grudge against the respondent. In fact, the applicant had lodged FIR so also summary suit against the maternal uncle of respondent No,2 namely Akhtar Javed Pirzado and others alleging therein that the said Pirzado had extorted huge amount from the applicant by defrauding him on the pretext of investment in the business and for this reason the applicant has been continuously filing false cases including FIRs against the respondent also' although he has no concern with the dispute between the applicant and the said Pirzado. According to him, in the complaint filed by the applicant he has leveled allegations of general nature against the respondent and the complaint does not contain a single word that the respondent has committed or even attempted to commit any cognizable offence against the applicant, as such the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the applicant has no locus standi to file the complaint. He prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the case-law reported in 2017 M LD 2048, 2010 SCM R 1816 and 2006 SCM R 647.
7. I have heard and given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record.
8. At the very outset, I would not hesitate in saying that though the - status of the informant/complainant normally does not require any particular relation and nexus with crime but disclosure of commission of cognizable offences is sufficient to set the law into motion. Normally, a complaint is investigated by the Agency concerned however through provision of section 200 of the Code the legislatures have provided a way to ensure that no offence should go unchecked merely for reason of negligence or indolence of concerned Agency. Providing a remedy is always aimed to foster the justice only therefore, mere filing of a complaint by resorting the course under section 200, Cr.P.C. would never necessarily mean issuance of process but an order for dismissal thereof is also legal and competent. It can well be said that purpose of a Preliminary Enquiry is primarily aimed to protect innocent from possible victimization and harassment even at the back of the accused, who, legally in Preliminary Enquiry has no right of participation. I am fortified in my such view with the case of Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others reported in 2010 SCM R 1816.
"..It is 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 who 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 SCM R 1904)."
9. In the case of Zafar and others (Supra), honourable Supreme Court provided guidelines to the concerned courts dealing with the direct complaints under section 200, Cr.P.C. in the following terms: "It is duty and obligation of the trial Court to scrutinize the contents of the complaint, nature of allegation made therein supporting material in support of accusation, the object intended to be achieved, the possibility of victimization and harassment, if any, to ensure itself that no innocent person against whom allegations are leveled should suffer the ordeal of protracted time consuming and cumbersome process of law."
10. In another case reported as Irshad Ullah v. State (2017 YLR 57) Honourable Lahore High Court held that provisions of private complaint could not be pressed into service to subvert the ends of justice and the process in private complaint was not to be issued in routine as existence of sufficient grounds for issuance of process was sine qua non for the same. It was further observed that expression "sufficient grounds for proceeding" occurring in section 204, Cr.P.C. was an expression of higher import than mere accusation; and must not be rooted into some evidential basis tangibly justifying summoning of an accused.
11. In the case of Saqib Mukhtar v. Syed Mohammad Sibtain Bukhari and others reported in 2016 M LD 175 [Lahore], honourable Lahore High Court while dealing with a private complaint filed under section 200, Cr.P.C. observed as under: "Admittedly respondent No,
1. Syed Mohammad Sibtain Bukhari who filed the complaint before Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore/respondent No,6 is neither the victim nor he has been given power by the alleged victim of the case to file a complaint."
12. Now examining the instant case on the touchstone of above said guidelines, it appears that the applicant in his complaint has leveled various allegations against the respondent/proposed accused, however, none of the said allegations relates to any alleged cognizable offence. The vague and general allegations without disclosing required ingredients of offence would never satisfy the lust of phrase 'sufficient grounds for proceedings'.
13. Further, it seems that various litigations have been subjudice between the parties since long. The respondent through Statements dated 3rd October, 2017 and 16th January, 2018 filed in this Cr.
Revision has given details of the litigations between the parties, so also the applications/complaints made to different authorities. Along with the said statements copies of such litigations and applications/complaints have also been annexed. Such fact has also been admitted by the applicant himself. In this connection it would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder relevant portion from the instant Criminal Revision Application in paras-15 and 23: "15. That while passing the impugned order the learned Judge failed to appreciate that in the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi so many Civil Suits are pending/disposed of filed by or against the above said culprit namely Mohsin Abbas. Civil Suit No, 339/09, before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh filed against Mohsin Abbas, Civil. Suit No,907/ 2010 before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, Civil Suit No,1491/200(sic) before High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereas Suit No,554/2012 was also filed against the said culprit namely Mohsin Abbas, before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in respect of above said Private Business, which was compromised on 20.07.2012 between the parties."
23. That while passing the impugned order the learned Judge failed to appreciate that it is pertinent to mention here that not only this, but several FIR(s) has been also lodged against the above said Culprit in different Police Stations in Karachi which, are pending before the Hon'ble Courts for their adjudication, which is self-explanatory proof that the said person is involved in heinous offences and liable to be prosecuted by the Government of Pakistan."
14. In the judgment of Zafar and others, supra, the honourable Supreme Court while providing guidelines in respect of a private complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. has categorically held that it is the duty of the trial Court to, inter alia, examine while dealing with a private complaint, 'the object intended to be achieved' and 'the possibility of victimization and harassment'. Keeping in view the pendency of various civil as well as criminal litigations between the parties most of which have been initiated against respondent No,2/proposed accused, it can safely be held that 'the object intended to be achieved' by filing direct complaint in question, seems to be nothing but to pressurize the respondent/proposed accused to bow down before the applicant/complainant and get settled the financial dispute which was/is admittedly sub judice between the applicant and the maternal uncle of the respondent namely Akhtar Javed Pirzado, particularly in view of the fact that in the direct complaint there are general allegations and no specific allegation has, at all, been leveled that the respondent/ proposed accused has committed or even attempted to commit any cognizable offence against the applicant. In this view of the matter, 'the possibility of victimization and harassment' i,e, another necessary factor to be examined by the trial Court while dealing with a private complaint, cannot be ruled out.
15. So far as the allegations contained in the direct complaint filed by the applicant, suffice it to say that the applicant has already moved applications to the concerned authorities and initiated civil as well criminal proceedings against the respondent. Further, per the applicant/complainant himself the quarter concerned has also initiated inquiry which alone (action by quarter concerned) is also sufficient for dismissal of the complaint filed by one, having no direct nexus with crime or its consequences. For the sake of convenience, while making reference to the criminal and civil litigations between the parties as mentioned in the preceding Para, it would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder para (xii) of the instant Criminal Revision Application: "xii) that the complainant moved an application to Director FIA against the said culprit in connection with running his private business during the job in Government of Pakistan and rebating Billions of Rupees from Customs, FBR, Income Tax Departments and requested to take necessary action against those mafia and an enquiry No,31/2016 was held in this respect and finally the enquiry was finished without any fruitful result."
16. In this view of the matter, it would be better for the applicant to pursue aforesaid proceedings already initiated by the applicant against the respondent instead of initiating fresh proceedings, whether civil or criminal unless the law and circumstances themselves so justify. The Superior Courts have not appreciated such attitude of the parties to indulge into multiple litigations. In the case of Nelson Paul alias Salim v. Mst. Asmat Parveen and others (2006 SCM R 647) honourable Supreme Court made following observations: "Simultaneously another round of litigation has been started by him. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is causing harassment for respondent by indulging into frivolous litigation and due to his this attitude we wanted to impose heavy cost upon him so he may avoid such litigation in future."
17. As regards the case-law relied upon on behalf of the applicant, it may be observed that it is a well settled principle of law that each criminal case is to be decided on its own merits and the facts in the cited cases are quite distinguishable, thus not attracted to the instant case.
18. The upshot of above discussion is that in view of aforesaid factual as well as legal aspects of the case, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Central-I), Karachi and consequently, instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby dismissed.