Mst: Rashida Bibi petitioner sought the quashinent of the order, dated 23-1-1991, by which a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kasur, accepting the revision petition of respondents Nos.1 and 2, set aside the order of the trial Magistrate, rejecting their application made under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
For their acquittal in a complaint case brought against them by the petitioner, and consequently accepting their aforesaid application, dismissed her complaint.
2. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner's counsel later converted the petitioner made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Into the petition for leave to appeal, of course with the permission of the Court, and it was subsequently converted into memo of appeal.
3. In the background of civil litigation in respect of the house in the occupation of the petitioner and her family members, with Muhammad Anwar 'and others, the respondents, in the evening of 31-7- 1988 trespassed into her house and gave beating to her; causing as many as 13 injuries on different parts of her body, besides outraging her modesty. She reported the matter to the police but under the influence of the respondents her case was riot registered and she eventually filed a private complaint in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate Mustafa Abad, Kasur. He recorded the statement of four witnesses, including the doctor, who had medically examined her; and summoned respondents Nos.1 and 2 as accused to face trial on various charges. They applied under section 249-.A, Cr.P.C.
For their acquittal but their application was rejected on 17-4-1990 by the learned trial Magistrate.
Aggrieved by this order, they filed are vision in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who, vide order, dated 23-1-1991 (now under challenge), accepted the application, of respondents Nos.1 and 2, and dismissing the complaint case of the petitioner, acquitted them.
Hence this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and remand of the case for trial in accordance with law.
4. I have heard the counsel representing the parties. In the complaint case filed by the petitioner, she had in the preliminary evidence examined three witnesses, including the doctor, who had medically examined her and before the trial Magistrate given the details of 13 injuries on her person as embodied in the medico-legal report. His statement coupled with the statement of two other witnesses corroborating her statement as a complainant, made out a prima facie case against respondents Nos.1 and 2 and they were rightly summoned as accused to face trial under certain penal provisions of law and their application made under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was rightly rejected by the learned trial Magistrate as premature.
5. In revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to take into consideration certain extraneous matters and on the basis of conjectures, erroneously accepted the revision as also the application made by respondents Nos-1 and 2 made under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.' and wrongly dismissed petitioner's complaint which resulted in their acquittal. The impugned order being illegal and unjust, resulted in miscarriage of justice and is bound to be set aside.
6. The appeal is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order is set aside, the application made by respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 249-A. Cr.P.C. Is rejected, and the complaint case filed by the petitioner is restored. It shall be deemed to be still pending in the trial Court which shall proceed with its trial on and from the stage the impugned order was passed. It shall be tried as a cross-case of the case pending in the same Court against her husband and son arising out of the same occurrence.
S.A./R-311 /L