' 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, 149, P.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant and other witnesses and also examined the medico-legal certificate exhibited as P.1 alongwith the complaint. The learned Magistrate after going through the preliminary evidence recorded by him came to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out against the respondents Nos.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 petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad against the order of summoning the respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad accepted the revision petition 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 nowhere is a regular trial to adjudicate the guilt of the person complained against. The issuance of summons by the learned Magistrate after the inquiry is not illegal and beyond jurisdiction. It is no where mentioned in section 202, Cr.P.C. That the person complained against be associated with the enquiry. Under the said section the person complained against has no locus standi and is not entitled to put his version and even cross-examine 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 disclose a prima facie case and the Court below has done nothing except the summons the accused person to answer the allegations which require to 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 on 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 medico-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 Mian v. The State 1971 P Cr. L J 598 The order of dismissal of the complaint does not mean the "discharge or acquittal" of the accused. No judicial proceedings has yet been started against the accused. That being the position, the learned Magistrate is competent to issue process against the accused".
8. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted in flagrant disregard of the law by dismissing the complaint in revision. Instead of dismissing complaint, the learned Sessions 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 set aside and the writ petition is accordingly accepted.