' This revision petition is directed against inter locator order, dated 3-10-1995, passed by Mr. Akbar Ali Cheema, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he summoned the petitioner to face trial in a complaint case titled as Fateh Muhammad v. Liaqat Ali and others.
2. Brief facts of this case leading to the instant revision petition are as under:-- ' Fateh Muhammad complainant and Atta Muhammad accused respondent are real brothers.
Abdul Sattar, deceased was the son of Fateh Muhammad, complainant. He was married to Mst.
Samina daughter of Atta Muhammad, accused respondent. A small plot was a bone of contention between the real brothers which led to this unhappy episode. Two rival contentions were agitated during the investigation. Complainant Fateh Muhammad alleged that he was in possession of the plot in dispute while his brother Atta Muhammad claimed its ownership alleging that the complainant had alienated the disputed plot in his favour for a sum of Rs,6,000 and he was in possession of the same. On the night of occurrence, as per contention of the complainant, Liaqat Ali and others who were armed with fire-arms emerged on the spot and asked the complainant to vacate the disputed plot and fired at Abdul Sattar deceased hitting on his right thigh which felled him on the ground. Both the parties sustained injuries during the occurrence. A case was registered against Atta Muhammad and others by Fateh Muhammad vide F.I.R. No,,200 at Police Station Hasilpur wherein name of Mst. Samina Kausar is not mentioned. He, however, subsequently, came forward with a second contention that he had specifically named her but the Investigating Officer dishonestly made an omission to incorporate her name in the F.I.R. Thereafter, he filed a private complaint wherein he implicated Mst. Samina Kausar by alleging that she was present at the spot and she abetted her co-accused in the commission of the offence with which they are charged.
The matter was referred to the Ilaqa Magistrate for inquiry and report. He recorded the statements of some of the eye-witnesses including the complainant and came to the conclusion that to the extent of Mst. Samina Kausar, the complainant's version was false but the trial Judge did not agree with the finding of the inquiry Magistrate and summoned Mst. Samina Kausar to face trial in the aforesaid complaint case.
3. It is now well-settled that a Court of revision will not question a finding as to the credibility of witnesses. Therefore, it will not go into the question whether or not the witnesses are interested and on that ground unworthy of credit. This is so held in PLD 1975 Pesh. 38 and AIR 1946 All.
7.
4. Mere fact that Mst. Samina Kausar was not named in the F.I.R. lodged18 by Fateh Muhammad, complainant or that the complainant version was found false by the Inquiry Magistrate cannot be taken to be legitimate ground for interference by this Court in exercise of provisional jurisdiction.
5. The discretion of the High Court to interfere with the 'orders passed by the subordinate Courts is unfettered, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and only when grave injustice is likely to be done PLJ 1974 Cr.C. 311 (AJ&K) or where there has been clear miscarriage of justice or order is illegal or perverse or it appears that grave injustice has been done by the impugned order. 1983 PCr.LJ 1985.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, I do not see any good ground to interfere in the impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity.
7. The revision petition is devoid of force which stands consequently, dismissed.
8. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to seek acquittal by moving an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court.
Revision .