' In this revision petition an order dated 30-3-1998 passed by Mr. Khalid Mahmood Cheema, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura is challenged, whereby he had summoned the present petitioners who were placed in column No,2 of the final report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. In a case registered under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. It is contended that the petitioners were declared innocent in successive police investigations and as such were not liable to be summoned particularly when they were placed in column No,2; secondly it was urged that vide order dated 12-8-1996, the Ilaqa Magistrate had discharged the present petitioners after they were found innocent by the police; thirdly it was contended that the learned trial Judge was not competent to summon the petitioners as accused in the case without recording any evidence. As such, it was alleged that the impugned order was beyond jurisdiction, illegal and void. Lastly, it was submitted that there was some sort of compromise on account of which, legal heirs of the deceased had sworn affidavit thereby exonerating the petitioners.
3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also perused the impugned order. It is true that the petitioners were found innocent but were ultimately placed in column No,2 of the final report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. Submitted to the Court concerned. The learned trial Judge, after considering the material before him and on going through the F.I.R. Came to the conclusion that a specific role was attributed to each of the petitioners who were present at the time of occurrence and, as such, they were summoned to face the trial. The view taken by the learned trial Court is supported by the F.I.R., wherein, all the three petitioners are named and have been shown armed with .12 bore guns each. Out of them, Usman Ghani and Muhammad Ishaque were persistently exhorting the other assailants to finish the deceased Shehbaz. In pursuance of the aforesaid exhortation, the deceased was done to death due to fire made by the principal accused. The contents of the F.I.R. Were supported by the P.Ws in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. As such, the view taken by the learned trial Court in summoning the accused/petitioners remains unexceptionable and does not call for interference in the revision petition. However, if there is any compromise, of which no evidence is placed before this Court in the form of alleged affidavit etc. The petitioner, if so advised, may bring a proper petition before the trial Court if the offence has already been compounded as claimed in the revision petition.
4. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition being without substance is dismissed in limine.
C.M. Nos.1 and 2 of 1998 Disposed of with the disposal of the main petition.
Revision .