CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The present criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of the facts that petitioner was involved in a case F.I.R. No. 177/95 registered at Police Station Pacca Laran under Section 337-A(ii)(V) P.P.C. The police after investigation submitted cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, before the Illaqa Magistrate on 23-1-1996 but the Illaqa Magistrate did not agree with final report of the Police and Police was directed to put up the challan in the Court within 14 days. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused was also summoned by the Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner filed an application under Section 249-A Cr.P.C, before the trial Court on 26-9-1996 on the ground that injuries inflicted to the complainant could be self-inflicted and the complainant has got compound the offences against the other co-accused namely: Ishaque and Iqbal. The police declared him innocent. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the application on 7-7-1997; hence the present criminal miscellaneous application.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that police has declared him innocent and requested for the cancellation of the case against him. He further contended that according to the report of the Doctor injuries inflicted to the complainant could be self-inflicted and the learned trial Court without recording the evidence issued notice to the petitioner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the learned trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of the petitioner without applying his mind, arbitrarily, mechanically and without recording their evidence, therefore, the order of the learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30 is without lawful authority. He relied upon "Arshad Alt Shah v. Saeed Muhammad Ashraf & another" (1996 P.Cr.L.J. Lah. 1673) "S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another' (1991 MLD Quetta 1977) and "Haji Muhammad Aslant v. The Stare" (NLR 1986 Criminal 144).
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted fact on the record that the petitioner was declared innocent by the Investigating Agency and the petitioner was also mentioned in Column No. 2 of the final challan submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent Court. It is also admitted fact on the record that the petitioner was not discharged by the competent Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgments of the High Court whereas the judgment of the Supreme Court is otherwise. The Supreme Court laid down a principle in "Waqarul Haq alias Nithoo and another v.
The State' (1988 SCMR 1428i to the follow ing effect: "The contention is that first evidence should be recorded and if in the light of such evidence the trial Court deems it proper to summon them only then they may be summoned. The point involved in this case is that three persons have been accused of the offence out of which one Muhammad Rafiq was placed in column No. 3 whereas ,the present petitioners were placed in column No. 2. The accused person whose name appears in Column No. 2 of the challan can be summoned bv the trial Court directly to stand the trial and it is not necessary that first some evidence should be recorded. In the present case the challan against the petitioners had not been cancelled by placing them in column No. 2. It only meant that according to the police investigation they were found innocent, and therefore, they were discharged under Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. However, it does not mean that they would not he summoned to stand trial by the Sessions Court. In that view' of the matter we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed".
4. The controversy between the parties fully answered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-mentioned case. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan criminal miscellaneous has no force, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.