AHMED SAEED AWAN, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Faisalabad whereby he accepted the revision petition of the respondents and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, before the Illaqa Magistrate against respondents under sections 324.337(A)(i)(iii), 452,148,449; PPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary' statement of the complainant and other witnesses.
And also examined the medico legal certificate exhibited as P. 4 alongwilh the complaint. The learned Magistrate after going through the preliminary evidence recorded by hint came to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out against the respondents No. 1 to 6; hence the learned trial Court issued the process of summoning the respondents vide his order dated 11.10.1993.
3: The respondents aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court; filed revision petitions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad against the order of summoning the respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad accepted the revision petitions and set aside the order of summoning the respondents on the ground that the medico-legal evidence produced before the trial Court is contrary and in conflict with the evidence of the A.Ws.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel at length and have perused the record.
5. I am of considered opinion that enquiry under section 202(1) Cr.P.C, is preliminary enquiry only to determine the truth and falsehood of the allegation made in the complaint and no where is a regular trial to adjudicate the guilt of the person complaint against. The issuance of summons by the learned Magistrate after the inquiry is not illegal and beyond jurisdiction, It is nr where mentioned in section 202 Cr.P.C, that the person complaint against be associated with the inquiry under the said section the person complaint against has no locus standi and is not entitled to put his version and even cross-examined the witnesses either by himself or by proxy.
6. Under section 436 Cr.P.C, criminal proceedings can be quashed if there is something on the record to show that the accusations made in the complaint do not disclose an offence at all but where the allegations in the complaint on the face of it discloses a prima facie case and the Court below has done nothing except the summons the accused person to answer the allegations which require io be listed in the light of evidence to be adduced, at this stage revision would be premature and it will be an abuse of process of Court of the complaint which oil its face shows a case is thrown out by revisional Court by quashing the proceedings in the Case without allowing the complainant to produce the evidence.
7. The findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to medico legal report are premature as the medical legal report has not become yet a piece of evidence and the opinion expressed in respect of the doctor is nothing but to prejudice the complaint itself, It was held in case Muhammad Miah Versus The State (1971 P.Cr.L.J.) "The order of dismissal of the complaint does not mean the "discharge of acquittal" of the accused. No judicial proceedings has yet been started against the accused. That being the position, the learned Magistrate is competent (o issue process against the accused".
8. In view of the above discussion, 1 am of the considered view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acted in flagrant disregard of the law by dismissing the complaint in revision. Instead of dismissing complaint, the learned trial Court should have directed the Magistrate to make further inquiry in the light of medico legal report, hence the order in revision by the learned Judge is setaside and the writ petition is accordingly accepted.