' The brief facts of this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the order dated 8- 12-1990 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum are that the petitioner instituted a complaint under section 307/34, P.P.C. Against respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Jhelum.
The respondents were summoned in consequence of inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. To face trial under sections 323/34, 506, P.P.C. Vide order, dated 3-6-1990 by the learned Magistrate Section 30.
2. The respondents filed a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3-6- 1990. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition holding that as the record revealed at the most offence under section 323, and 506, Part I, 34, P.P.C. Was made out against the respondents and the said offences were triable by the Conciliation Court; hence directed the learned trial Court to send the complaint to the Conciliation Court for trial of the respondents hence this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Against the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge.
(3) I have heard learned counsel at length. Preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents with reference to Noorul-Rehman v. The State and another 1987 P Cr. L J 2171 that an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 439-A, cannot be impugned under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As it would tantamount to entertaining a second revision but as laid down by the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court in case Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hayee and others 1987 SCMR 1371 the powers possessed by the Courts under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Do not impugne, curtail or limit, in any manner whatsoever, the powers under section 561-A, the Courts enjoy. The powers under the two provision of the law are independent and jurisdiction can be exercised under the latter to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdictional requirements of the exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Are:--
(i) To give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.
(ii) To prevent abuse of process of any Court.
(iii) To secure the ends of justice.
' Hence in the light of principle laid down by the Supreme Court supra, the preliminary objection must be rejected.
4. Section 18 of the Conciliation Court Ordinance of 1961 provides that nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the police from investigating a cognizable case, although it may be one triable exclusively under the Conciliation Court Ordinance; in such case if taken to a Criminal Court; then it is for the such criminal Court; if it thinks fit, to direct that it be referred to Conciliation Court under the Ordinance. As such under section 18 of the Ordinance the discretion lay with the trial Magistrate either to send the case to the Conciliation Court or try himself. The complaint is synonymous to F.I.R.
Which is being investigated by the Magistrate instead of the police; like F.I.R. The complaint can either be sent to the Conciliation Court or tried by the Magistrate and it is the discretion of the such Court and no objection can be taken to it. In case Misal Khan v. Hussain Shah and 2 others PLD 1976 Pesh. 159, the learned Magistrate on a complaint before him came to the conclusion that a case under section 323/34, P.P.C. Was made against the accused but presumably in view of Part-I of Schedule to Conciliation Courts Ordinance discharged the accused under section 253, Cr.P.C.
After careful examination of section 3(1)(a) and 18 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961. It was held that it was in the discretion of the Court; it may either be referred to Conciliation. Court or he could have himself tried the same. The great stress was laid on the word "may" appearing in section 18 as it was held in case Abdul Rehman v. The State PLD 1967 Pesh. 364, "it is up to the Magistrate to try the case or refer it to the Conciliation Court". Further it has also been held in case Baboo Khan v. Sardara and another 1977 P Cr. L J 77 that Schedule I appended to Ordinance does not oust jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Courts and accused charged under section 34, P.P.C. Can be tried exclusively by a Criminal Court for trial in accordance with law.
5. The result of the above discussion is that I set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and direct that the case be referred to the Magistrate for trial in accordance with law.