ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly that Muhammad Fareedun, appellant, was involved by Gohar Aman in a case under section 11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance VII of 1979, vide F.I.R. No.42 dated 29-6-1981, alleging inter alia that he (Fareedun) alongwith some others had abducted his (complainant's) daughter Mst.
Samina Bibi. The appellant was consequently arrested and remained an under-trial prisoner for about 34 days. He was, however, acquitted subsequently by the learned Sessions Judge, Manshera, vide his judgment dated 12-10-1982. In the process, according to the appellant, he had spent a sum of Rs.48,000 in defending himself against the aforementioned false charge and had to sell his landed property for that purpose, which was the only source of income for his family. He was also defamed and degraded in the society in which he lived and suffered extreme mental torture. He is an employee in the Pakistan Air Force and with a view to vindicate his honour, reputation and respect in the society in which he lived, he filed a private complaint against Bara Khan son of Gul Zaman, Muhammad Fareed son of Akbar Tanoli and Mst. Samina Bibi daughter of Gohar Aman, complainant, under sections 195, 196, 205, 211, 312 and 500 P.P.C. Since he had no money to engage a lawyer and had himself studied law, he went ahead and himself filed a complaint under the above sections, alleging inter alia that during the trial of the case under section 11/16 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, against him, these persons had given false evidence against him and also alleged that Mst. Samina Bibi (accused), who was pregnant through some illicit relationship, had got the pregnancy aborted with the help of Muhammad Fareed, co-accused. He also alleged that they had submitted certain false documents in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra during the trial.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra who was seized of the matter, dismissed the said complaint by his order dated 7-7-1985, inter alia, on the ground that a private complaint could not be filed under sections 195, 196, 205 and 211, P.P.C. Without first obtaining an order of concerned Court under section 476, Cr.P.C. Realizing his mistake, Muhammad Fareedun then filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. In the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra relating to offences under sections 195, 196, 205 and 211, P.P.C. Allegedly committed by the aforementioned accused during the trial of the case against him (appellant) under the Hudood Ordinance. In this application, however, he omitted offences under section 312 (causing miscarriage) and section 500, P.P.C. (defamation) as these were not alleged to have been committed by the said accused in the course of the aforementioned trial.
But the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra, dismissed the said application vide his order dated 8-1- 1986, on the ground that a similar complaint by Muhammad Fareedun (appellant) had already been dismissed on 7-7-1985. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal before the Peshawar High Court, which too, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 15-2-1986 on the same ground, namely that an earlier complaint filed by Muhammad Fareedun (appellant), regarding the same matter, had already been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra on 7-7-1985 and as Muhammad Fareedun had failed to appeal against thesaid order, it had become final and a second complaint on the same facts was, therefore, not competent.
3. Muhammad Fareedun thereupon filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court and was granted leave on 8-10-1986 to consider whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra was justified in dismissing appellant's application under section 476 Cr. P. C. On the ground that an earlier complaint filed by him had been dismissed on 7-7-1985 and whether the High Court was justified in dismissing his application for leave to appeal.
4. It may be mentioned that the appellant, who is not a practising lawyer, has throughout been conducting the case himself and has also argued this appeal before us in person. We have gone through the entire record with his help and also heard the learned State counsel. We find that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 7-7-1985 and the impugned order of the Peshawar High Court dated 23-4-1986 are based on the misconception that the second application filed by Muhammad Fareedun appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra on 24-8-1985 was also a private complaint, like the one filed by him earlier. But a careful reading of the said application dated 24-8-198,5 shows that though it does not mention so the heading (as it was drafted by a trained lawyer), it is in fact an application to the trial Court under section 476 Cr.P.C. This is evident from paragraph 2 of the said application which reads as follows:--- It is, therefore, requested that an inquiry is to be held under section 476 Cr. P. C . Whether is it not extreme injustice to me if the people are not punished for their offences, and then under section 195, Cr.P.C. a complaint is to be made under sections 195, 205, 211, P.P.C. Against the accused by this honourable Court as provided in section 195, Cr. P. C because the Court is to provide complete justice to every one. The accused should be punished according to existing law, they should be asked to pay me the sum of Rs.48,000 which was spent in this false case filed against me, having no fault of mine.
We might also mention that although lodging of false reports and making false allegations is a matter of daily occurrence in this country and though persons falsely involved in criminal cases are almost invariably acquitted, yet hardly anyone takes up the courage to go through the ordeal of another Court proceeding to vindicate his honour and to restore his dignity in the society in which he lives. It is apparent that Muhammad Fareedun is a person, who has been deeply hurt by the insult and indignity heaped upon him by the complainant as also the witnesses who made false statements and manufactured false evidence against him. Secondly, he is also handicapped by the fact that he cannot afford to have a trained lawyer to assist him in prosecuting his case.
5. In view of the discussion in paragraphs 4 and 5 we allow the appeal and remand the appellant's application under section 476, Cr.P.C. To the learned trial Court for a proper inquiry and if it finds that a prima facie case is in fact made out, to try the accused persons for the offences in question, in accordance with law.