1. This is a revision application against the order passed by the S. D. M., Nazimabad, Karachi dismissing the complaint under section 203. A revision against this order was dismissed by the learned City and Additional City Magistrate, Karachi.
2. There was a dispute between the parties over some plot since sometime and there was litigation between them as a result of that dispute. On 23-2-1968 the applicant Mst. Dilbari Begum lodged a first information report at Liaquatabad Police Station which reads as under : "It is submitted that I am the allottee of Plot No. 804-A in Block No. 4 which has been in my possession for a long time. The suit of my husband bearing No. 255/65 in respect of this plot is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Karachi wherefrom injunction orders in my favour have been issued. Now Mahboob Hassan, Baboo Habib etc. are disputing over this plot against whom twice F.
3. I. R. were lodged. This time last night they stole away the bamboos from my plot. It is, therefore, submitted that legal action be taken against them." The police, after usual investigation, did not challan the case and obtained B summary from the learned Magistrate. Consequently the applicant filed a direct complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on oath and held preliminary inquiry. Two witnesses Khalil Ahmed and Muhammad Ramzan were produced and their statements were recorded. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the accusations made by the applicant, and, therefore, dismissed the complaint by passing the following order : "Statements under section 200/202, Cr. P. C. recorded and perused. 1 have also sent for and examined the police record of this case. The final report was accepted by me and the complaint lodged by the complainant was found to be false with ulterior motives to implicate her enemies.
4. Her witnesses under section 202, Cr. P. C. have admitted that there has been constant quarrels between the complainant and the accused. This complaint has therefore been filed to off-set the action to be taken against the complainant under section 182, Cr. P. C. and is, therefore, dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C."
5. The learned Additional District Magistrate agreed with the order and dismissed the revision application. Three points were raised before the Additional City Magistrate. The first point was that there tstill remained some witnesses who were not examined. The second point was that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint on the basis of the former inquiry. The third point was that the complaint was dismissed on the ground that there was dispute between the parties.
6. In connection with these points the learned Additional District Magistrate observed as under : "A perusal of this order would indicate that the learned S.D.M. has not erred in law but has relied upon three factors to dismiss the complaint. One is the examination of the complainant and her two witnesses the other is police report and the third factor which he took into consideration is the previous quarrel and the motive with which this complaint was lodged."
7. The only ground which was taken before me by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the learned Magistrate did not exercise his own independent judgment but he merely acted on the investigation jwhich was made by the police and, therefore, the order was bad in law. I find no force in this contention. It is clear from the order which has been reproduced above that the learned Magistrate not only examined the police papers but he had recorded the statements of the witnesses in the preliminary inquiry and on the assessment of that evidence he was of the view that the allegations had not been established. To this was added the ground of the previous dispute between the parties. No exception can, therefore, be taken against the order of the learned Magistrate. Indeed the learned Magistrate did not deal with the evidence of the witnesses in detail to show how their evidence was not acceptable but if the order is sustainable on the grounds stated by the learned Magistrate and on the assessment of the evidence it does not call for interference. [9] parties since sometime. I am, therefore, doubtful if any theft was committed. Even presuming that the theft was committed, on reading the evidence it is plain enough that the allegations against the respondent were based on mere suspicion. In view of these facts no process could be issued.
8. In the result the revision application is dismissed. .