1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 2-11-1988, passed in Criminal Revision No,100 of 1987.
2. ' The facts in brief are that on 19-4-1987 an F.I.R. Was registered at the instance of Javed Akhtar respondent No,4 under section 307/34, P.P.C. Read with section 15/20/65, A.O. Against Safeer Ahmed, Gul Zamir, Jalil and Hanif. Muneer Ahmed respondent No,1, the real brother of Safeer Ahmed accused filed cross-complaint of the same occurrence regarding the injuries suffered by Safeer Ahmed and Gul Zamir in the Court of Magistrate, Islamahad on 28-4-1987. The learned Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 24-4-1987.
3. Munir Ahmed respondent No,1 filed revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamahad under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., who vide his order dated 27-7-1987 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Magistrate with direction to make further probe into the matter. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was dismissed being incompetent vide judgment dated 2-11-1988.
4. ' The learned counsel in support of this petition argued that the private complaint was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. Which was a revisable order A under section 436, Cr.P.C. And the Additional Sessions Judge was thus empowered while setting aside the order of the Magistrate and to give him direction to make further probe into the matter as to what offence is made out against the respondents. The learned counsel also contended that the High Court in revision petition under sections 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has wrongly dismissed the same, treating it to be a 2nd revision. The learned High Court while ignoring section 439-A, could have also decided the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In our opinion the points in this petition and the contention raised by the learned counsel in support thereof, merit consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. ' Appeal is to be heard in October, 1989 on the present record with liberty to parties to file necessary documents, if any. Proceedings before the Trial Court are stayed till the final disposal of the appeal.