On 27th June, 1980. Abdul A7iZ, respondent lodged an F.I.R., with the police under section 302;34, P.P.C. In respect of murder of his son namely. Abdul Majid and named the petitioners therein. The police, however, instead of proceeding against the persons named in the F.I.R challaned Dost Muhammad and seven others. Earlier, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 9255/80 against the S.H.O. And 2 others complaining that his witnesses in the murder case were being harassed by them and that they intended to rope in the witnesses as culprits. He prayed for the issue of a direction to the Police to record the statements of his witnesses in accordance with law. The action of the Police in not proceed--ing against the petitioners was also sought to be declared as illegal.
This writ petition was disposed of on 27th May, 1981 with the observation that the respondent was at liberty to file a private complaint against the persons to whom he considered to be the murderers.
Accordingly, he filed a private complaint under section 302/34. P. P. C. Against the petitioners and one Muhammad Shafi. The learned Sessions Judge sent the same to the learned Magistrate for report under section 202, Cr. P.C. The latter examined 7 witnesses produced by the respondent and in this report dated 17th January, 1982 exonerated Muhammad Shafi and further opined that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners.
2. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the report to the extent of Muhammad Shafi only. He found that the learned Magistrate, instead of considering as to whether or not there was a prima face case against the petitioners, proceeded in the manner as if he was holding a trial. Thus he himself considered the material on the record and maintained that a prima facie case' under section 302134, P.P C. Was made out against them. Accordingly, he took cognizance of the case.
Hence this Criminal revision by the petitioners.
3. It has been argued on their behalf that the learned Magistrate was legally bound to sift the allegations levelled against them m the complaint and scrutinize the evidence from that angle. He heavily relied on Shamim v. The State and another (PLD 1966 SC 178). The impugned order was also assailed on the plea that the learned Sessions Judge while taking cognizance did not at all discuss the evidence on the file.
4. The stand taken by the learned counsel, is wholly misconceived. The purpose of an inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. Is merely to see whether or not the process should be issued against the persons named in the complaint. It should not partake the character of a full dress rehearsal for the trial. The Magistrate entrusted with the proceedings under section 202, Cr. P. C., has no jurisdiction to weigh the evidence as if he has to find out whether or not the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case. The precedent relied upon by the learned counsel deals with the scope of section 201 and has no application to the facts of the case in hand.
5. I have myself gone through the entire evidence and the lengthy report of the learned Magistrate and feel that the learned Sessions Judge was not wrong in discarding the report and holding that the prima facie case existed against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has examined the motive part and evaluated the evidence as if he was holding a trial. His report in this respect is evidently laconic. Needless to mention that the report under section 202, Cr. P.C., was not binding on the learned Sessions Judge. The latter has applied his mind to the material on the record and has exercised his judicial discretion in issuing the processes t the petitioners. The impugned order does not suffer from any error o illegality. No ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine.