' This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Calls in question the validity of the order passed by learned A.C./Magistrate 1st Class, Chishtian on 27-2-1994 whereby the petitioner was summoned in the complaint filed by respondent under section 107/150, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts as alleged by the respondent-complainant, briefly, are that Mst. Kaniz Fatima was married to Zafar Iqbal petitioner who divorced here on 19-12-1993. Subsequently, the relations between the parties became strained which led the parties to endless litigation. During that process the petitioner is alleged to have extended threats of murder and dire consequences to the complainant. Apprehending imminent danger at the hands of the petitioners, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned A.C./M.I.C., Chishtian, who recorded the statement of Mst. Kaniz Fatima and on her solitary statement ordered summoning of the petitioner who are respectable and law abiding citizens and have allegedly done nothing warranting the application of provisions of law sought to be applied against them by the complainant.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the complainant was not recorded by the Magistrate but by his Reader on 27-2-1994 and the learned Magistrate on her claim which was not supported by any witness, issued the impugned order; that the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge-I, who rejected it on certain technicalities and directed the petitioner to approach the High Court for abashment of the proceedings; that the order is without any legal sanction behind as it was passed without application of judicious mind in judicious way; that it offends against the dictum of this Court reported as 1994 PCr.LJ 430.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that it is the satisfaction of the trial Court which matters in such a case and if the Magistrate was satisfied he was at liberty to issue the process complained of.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused. The assertion that the Magistrate had not himself recorded the statement of the complainant has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Such a statement has been held to have no legal authority. Even otherwise the learned Magistrate should have had judicial satisfaction by ensuring that the statement of the complainant was supported at least by one witness. Since it has not been done and the statement is alleged to have been recorded by the Reader and not by the Magistrate, the proceedings have no legal authority and as such are hereby quashed. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if so advised.