' Applicant abovenamed,being aggrieved by order, dated 12-10-1980 of the learned Ilnd Addl.
Sessions Judge, Dadu, by which applicant's direct complaint filed against the respondents Nos. 2-4 was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C.,has preferred the above petition on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo, of above petition.
2. The main contention urged by the learned Advocate for the applicant before me was, that the learned trial Court has gone beyond the scope of section 203 Cr.P.C. And relied upon the police inquiry conducted in a murder case arising out of the same incident, in which the respondents Nos.
2-4 were not challaned before the learned trial Court in question. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon case 1969 P Cr. L J 692.
3. The learned Advocate for respondents Nos.2-4 on the other hand submitted that revision is an equitable jurisdiction and since only one injury has been attributed to Bashir, the order of dismissal of the private complaint is legal and ought not to be interfered with in present petition. The learned Advocate for respondent relied upon case PLD 1973 Kar.
478.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted, that the order of dismissal of the private complaint of the applicant is legal and in accordance with law and as such he fully supports the same.
5. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as cases cited by the learned Advocate before me.
6. The provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C. Are very clear, that the learned trial Court had to only consider the statements recorded before it, and/or in inquiry conducted under its orders, in respect of the complaint in question. However, I find from the impugned order, that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the investigation conducted by the police in the State case arising out of very incident,' in which the present respondents were not challaned, as their pleas of alibies were accepted by the police. In -addition to this the learned trial Court was under the impression, that on account of earlier order, dated 15th June, 1980 of his predecessor, in Sessions Case No, 87/79, where applicant's. Application to join the respondent as co-accused persons was rejected, he could not issue process in the private complaint in question, as thus would amount to reviewing the said order of his learned predecessor and as such he has no powers. This conception of the learned trial Court is misconceived, as in my opinion the learned trial Court was neither bound by order, dated 15th June, 1980 passed in Sessions Case No,87/78 by his learned predecessor nor the learned trial Court could have taken into consideration the police investigation conducted in the said case, in the result of which the respondents in question were not challaned, in Sessions Case No, 87/78.
7. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the learned trial Court for further inquiry, in accordance with the provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, however, will be at liberty to get on record the papers relating to the inquiry conducted by the police in Sessions Case No, 87/78 and thereafter consider the same alongwith the statements recorded in preliminary inquiry, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the applicant in his capacity as complainant and then pass the appropriate order as it may deem fit, in accordance with the provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C., in respect of the private complaint in question of the applicant.
8. The above petition stands disposed of in the terms of the above judgment.