1. ' By this Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Badin whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed under section 203. Cr.P.C.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant/complainant filed direct complaint under sections 220, 344, 195 read with section 149, P.P.C. On or before 11-7-1995 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Matli against the accused shown in the complaint. Since the offences shown in the complaint were exclusively triable by the Court of Session as such, the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint to the Sessions Court Badin under section 190(3), Cr.P.C.
3. ' The learned Sessions Judge after recording statement of the complainant (applicant) under section 200 Cr.P.C., sent the case to Judicial Magistrate, Matli by the order dated 30-7-1995 for the purpose of preliminary enquiry.
4. ' The learned Judicial Magistrate after holding preliminary enquiry sent the same to the Sessions Judge, Badin, who has dismissed the complaint by the impugned order, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- "Under the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. No Court can take cognizance of offence punishable under section 195, P.P.C. When offences alleged to have been committed in proceedings in any Court except on the complaint in writing of such Court.
5. ' In the present case there is no such complaint from the Court concerned or any Court subordinate to it, as such, no cognizance can be taken, The complaint is therefore, dismissed."
6. ' I have heard Mr. Noor Nabi Memon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Agha Khuda Bux, Advocate for the State. I have also gone through the impugned Order, complaint filed by the applicant and other relevant record.
7. ' Mr. Noor Nabi G. Memon, learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the complaint cannot be dismissed by the learned trial Court for the reasons stated in the order as the complaint itself disclosed offences for other sections 220 and 344, P.P.C. Besides section 195 P.P.C., on such, baring section 195, P.P.C., the appropriate orders could have been passed on the complaint under sections 220 and 344, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. The learned counsel has further contended that by not considering this aspect of the case, the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it thereby causing miscarriage and failure of justice. The learned counsel has put reliance on the decision reported in PLD 1960 Decca 975, which is a D.B.
8. Decision.
9. ' When pointed out to the learned counsel that how the revision without impleading the accused shown in the complaint as already is maintainable, the learned counsel, relying on 1975 PCr.LJ 511 has contended that as no process has been ordered against them under section 204, Cr.P.C. And that the complaint has been dismissed, as such, the accused are not necessary parties nor they have any locus standi at this stage to be impleaded as respondents.
10. ' The learned State Counsel has not supported the impugned order and concedes that it is a fit case for remand to the learned trial Court for passing fresh orders in the light of the reported case of Dacca, ' I have considered the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel. I have also gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and the impugned order as well as the complaint itself.
11. ' The complaint filed by the applicant contains various allegations against the accused who were police officials. The allegations in the complaint were that, not only three boys namely Abdul Wahab, Abdul Wahid and Manio Koli were arrested through the accused Bashir Ahmed Mangi (S.H.0.) and after . Keeping in an illegal custody extorted judicial confession and subsequently they were challaned in the murder case. The complaint further contained the allegation that the applicant protested against the highhandedness of the accused and approached the S.S.P., Badin against the S.H.O. Concerned which resulted that the applicant was arrested by the S.H.O. Bashir Ahmed Mangi in the night on 5-6-1995 and later on involved him in false F.I.R. No, 52/1995.
12. The learned Sessions Judge considering only one section 195, P.P.C. Dismissed the complaint in pursuance of section 195, Cr.P.C., without considering the other allegations made in the complaint regarding misuse of powers and wrongful detention of the applicant which are offences punishable under sections 220 and 344, P.P.C.
13. ' In the reported case, it was held that when there are several offences one of which requires complaint to be riled by the competent Court, the trial Court may proceed with charges other than the requiring complaint, as such, there was no bar to pass the appropriate orders regarding offences punishable under sections 220 and 344/149, P.P.C. The impugned order is, therefore, patently illegal and not sustainable.
14. ' Considering the law reported in 1975 PCr.11 511 and the fact that there was no process order against the accused shown in the complaint, they were not required to be impleaded as respondents in the Revision Application, as no prejudice is to be caused at this stage.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that Criminal Revision Application No,19/1995 is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Session Judge, Badin is set aside and the complaint is remanded to the Trial Court for passing fresh orders in the light of observations made above and holding further enquiry under section 436, Cr.P.C., if deemed necessary.