KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---The captioned criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 05.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad, dismissing the direct Complaint No.134 of 2017 re-Ghulam Hyder v . Badaruddin Abbasi and others.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that complainant Ghulam Hyder was awarded contract for construction of road from College road to Magsi Mori Via Shahani Mohalla to Mallah Chowk Union Council-III Dadu with total estimated cost of Rs.71,52,C00/-, which was later on revised and increased from Rs.71,52,000/- to Rs.92,00,000/- in the year 2012. The Highway Department allegedly . paid Rs.79,46,000/ through A running bills and the remaining amount of Rs.12,54,000/- with call deposit amount and security amount, total amount of Rs.16,59,000/-, was allegedly unpaid, hence the applicant / complainant Ghula m Hyder , filed the subject direct complaint before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Hyde rabad. After recording statement of the complainant, the matter was assigned for enquiry to Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment Dadu, by the learned Trial Court; the enquiry officer after making preliminary enquiry submitted his detailed report bearing No.C O/ACE/2240 Dated 25.10.2017 before the learned Special Judge Anti-C orruption (Provincial) Hyderabad, who after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/complainant dismissed the subject direct complaint vide impugned order dated 05.12.2017. Hence the applicant has filed this criminal revision application.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, who was awarded contract of the subject work has already been paid substantial amount and an amount of Rs.16,59,000/- which includes the call deposit and security deposit amou nt is still outstanding against the Highway Department, therefore, the applicant had filed the subject direct complaint against the respondents, so that the aforesaid amount may be paid to him by the Highway Department; and, that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the direct complaint filed by the applicant without considering such aspects of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set-aside and the case may be remitted back to the learned trial Court to reconsider the case of the applicant.
4. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6, who are present in person, have mainly conten ded that the applicant was not awarded contract of the two subject contract works during their postings; that the applicant did not complete the work and then the scheme went out of ADP; and, that they are innocent and they have unnecessarily been dragged by the applicant/contractor in the subject frivolous direct complaint just to harass and pressurize them for undue gain.
5. Learned APG adopting the arguments of the respondents has further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Hyderabad. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.
6. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that the applicant/contractor was awarded two works namely the subject work "Improvement of road from College road to Magsi Mori via Shahani Paro and Mallah Chowk mile 0/0-0/7 UC-Ill Dadu" for amounting to Rs.71,50,000/ which was revised for an amount of Rs.92,00,000/- and other work namely "Improvement of road from Jamali House to Makki Masjid mile 0/0-0/3 amounting to Rs.
4.950 (M)". The enquiry report dated 25.10.2017 reveals that the applicant/contractor did not complete the work and the scheme is now out of ADP ; and, that no amount of complainant was outstanding against the respondents.
Plain reading of the complaint would reveal that the applicant/contractor by suppressing the aforesaid material facts, adversely reflecting upon him, had filed the subject direct complaint and this criminal revision application, which seem to have been aimed at to abuse the process of law .
7. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complaint is to state the facts to satisf y the Court of the existence of every ingredient of alleged offence, otherwise, a complainant would not be entitled to invoke aid of the Court and to foist travails of criminal trial on a person, accused by him; in order to constitute offence complainant must disclose existence of both basic ingredients namely unlawful act "actus rea" and criminal intent "mens rea" on the part of accused; before issuing process, the Court is under obligatio n to satisfy itself for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint as to the existence or nonexistence of sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused, and main object of dealing with the examination of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. is to protect the public from false, frivolous and vexatious complaints filed against them; and, the Court cannot proceed to issue process against the alleged accused until and unless, is satisfied that prima facie case has been made out against those who are accused of the alleged criminal offence. The learned trial Court considering aforesaid aspects of the case dismissed the direct complaint filed by the applicant vide impugned order dated 05.12.2017. The relevant paragraphs-6 and 7 of the impugned order , are reproduced here for the sake of convenience.
"6. As per report of the enquiry officer no amount of the complainant is lying with the proposed accused. If for the sake of arguments, it is believe d that the amount of the complainant is still lying with the proposed accused then he may ask for its return through civil court having jurisdiction. No civil remedy could he converted into criminal on the basis of allegation of bribe.
7. In view of above, it could be concluded safely that no case for taking cognizance against the proposed accused is made out, consequently , instant direct complaint is dismissed."
8. In view of what has been discussed above, 1 am of the considered view that the learned trial court, by dismissing the direct complaint of the applicant/contractor , has not committed any illegality . The learned counsel for the applicant has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order , dismissing the direct complaint, by the learned trial court, attracting the interference of this Court in these proceedings. Accordingly , the instant criminal D revision application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 23.11.2018, whereby this criminal revision application was dismissed.