1. ' By this Criminal Miscellaneous Application the applicant Abdul Hussain and Niaz Ahmad have sought following relief: "It is prayed on behalf of the above named applicants that this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash the order, dated 8-4-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge and FCM, Mirpur Bathoro in the direct Complaint No,5 of 1997 Muhammad Bashir v. Sher Khan and others registering where under the case against the applicants and others for offences under sections 147, 148, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 109/114, P.P.C. And issuing the warrants of arrest against them and also quash the judgment, dated 26-5-1997 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Thatta in the Criminal Revision Application No,9 of 1997 dismissing where under the revision filed by the applicants."
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 Muhammad Shabbir filed direct complaint against the applicant and others in the Court of learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Mirpur Bathoro, District Thatta wherein he stated that he is permanent employee of D'ewan Sugar Mills since last many years. He was serving honestly without any cause of complaint to the management. In the third week of March, 1997 while respondent No,1 was on duty, the applicants and their associates took him to a room of the Mill on the pretext of enquiry. Respondent No,1 was detained in the said room. After a short while accused came there and at their direction the respondent No,1 was maltreated. He was given fist and kicks blows whereupon he raised cries but no one rescued him.
3. He was then locked-up in the room and during his illegal confinement he (respondent No,1) was constantly humiliated/belabored with the result that on 21-3-1997 respondent No,1 went unconscious, whereupon respondent No,1 was moved to Mill Hospital where he was treated. He was again removed to the said room by accused and wrongfully locked-up after he regained senses.
4. On 25-3-1997 custody of respondent No,1 was handed over to Mirpur Bathoro Police alongwith three other persons where he was implicated in some case.
5. ' The learned Civil Judge and F.C.N. After recording the statement of complainant and holding preliminary enquiry issued process against the applicants and co-accused under sections 147, 148, 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. Read with sections 109 and 114, P.P.C.
6. ' The applicants and co-accused Dr.Abdul Aleem assailed the order of trial Court by way of criminal revision application under sections 435 and 439-A, Cr.P.C. Before the Court of Sessions which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta vide order, dated 26-5-1997.
7. ' I have heard Mr. Pir Tariq F. Siddiki, learned counsel for the applicants, respondent No, 1 in person and Mr. Muhammad Saleh Panhawar learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. The latter i,e, respondent No,1 and the counsel for State have supported the impugned orders. I have also perused the material placed on record.
8. ' The perusal of record and impugned order shows that on 3-4-1997 the respondent No,1 was in custody and hospitalized. The complaint was signed in presence of Doctor Shabir Ahmad Samoon, Senior Resident Medical Officer, Thatta Mirpur Bathoro. The complaint was received by the learned trial Magistrate on 4-4-1997. The respondent No,1 (Complainant) was called by the Court where he was produced in custody. The statement of respondent (complainant) was recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. The preliminary enquiry was held under section 202, Cr.P.C. The prosecution witnesses supported the version of the complainant and medical officer corroborated the factum of injuries sustained by the complainant. The Magistrate thereafter passed the impugned order reproduced herein-under in extenso: "ORDER ' Heard the complainant Muhammad Shabbir present in the Court in person. From the perusal of statement of complainant of witnesses record under section 200, Cr.P.C. And the statement of Witnesses recorded under section 202, Cr.P.C. I have come to a conclusion that a prima facie case under sections 147, 148, 337-A(1) and 337-F(1), P.P.C. Read .With section 109/114, P.P.C. Is made out for making unlawful assembly and causing injuries to complainant. Register the case against all the accused persons and issue boilable warrants against them in the sum of Rs,10,000 each for their appearance on 14-4-1997 to face trial under the offence mentioned above.
9. (Sd.)
10. Civil Judge & FCM, M/Bathoro."
11. ' The aforementioned order was challenged by way of criminal revision, which was dismissed on 26-5.1997 stated hereinabove.
12. ' The record further shows that on 29-3-1997 the applicant party lodged F.I.R. No, 22 of 1997 against respondent No,1 and others under sections 420, 468, 408, 427 and 506(11), P.P.C. At Police Station, Mirpur Bathoro District, Thatta and their arrest was shown on 29-3-1997. After usual investigation respondent No,1 and others were sent up on 13-4-1997 to stand trial.
13. ' The contention is that the trial Court passed the impugned order in haste inasmuch as on 4-4- 1997 the complaint was filed and on the same date statement of complainant was recorded and on 8-4-1997 preliminary enquiry was held and statements of P Ws.. Were recorded and case was brought on file suggested interest on the part of trial Magistrate. This contention is misconceived.
14. ' The Chapter XVI and Chapter XVII of Cr.P.C. Relate to complaints and commencement of proceedings before the Court. It is envisaged under section 200, Cr.P.C. That upon taking cognizance of an offence on complaint the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant upon oath at once and the substance of the examination has to be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, and also by the Magistrate. Thus, the object of this section is to ascertain the facts constituting the offence and to save the wastage of the time of the Court and also to enable the Magistrate to arrive at a conclusion for further proceedings A with the case or not. Section 202, Cr.P.C. Postulates that the Court on receiving complaint of an offence of which it is authorized to take cognizance, may if it thinks lit, for reasons to be recorded postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and inquire into the case itself for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the said complaint. The object of this section is that the Magistrate has to ensure that no person was vexed or compelled unnecessarily to face a criminal charge. The intention was to find out whether any prima facie case for proceedings was made out or not. If he was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out. If it was his bounden duty to issue process as contemplated under section 204, Cr.P.C. No time limit is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for recording the statement of complainant, holding P.E. And issuing process or otherwise. It is well-settled that justice delayed means justice denied. Thus, no illegality was committed by the Magistrate in promptly proceeding with the complaint before issue of process under section 204, Cr.P.C.
15. ' It is further urged that evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry was contradictory, discrepant and that, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. This contention is also devoid of force.
16. The preliminary enquiry cannot be equated with a regular trial for adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the person complained against. The Court cannot weigh/assess or evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the manner as is done upon the conclusion of trial. The preliminary enquiry is intended to find out whether any prima facie case is made out to put the accused on trial. Thus, if there were any material contradictions etc. Those could be put to the witnesses at the time of recording of the evidence at the stage of trial and the Court could consider the same upon final evaluation of evidence in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
17. ' It was then argued that there was a counter-case initiated upon police report lodged by applicant party and that therefore, the present complaint was not maintainable. This submission is also without any substance.
18. It is well-settled that when there are two versions of an incident with one version put forward by one party and counter-version by its adversary, the trial Court while assessing evidence brought on record by the parties has to keep both versions in juxtaposition and then arrive at a final conclusion. In doing so, however, Court cannot consider the evidence of one case in another case.
19. ' The High Court in exercise of its power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is charry to interfere and normally refrains from intervening in the normal course of the trial of subordinate Courts, particularly where evidence has not been recorded. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked merely because the applicants considered the allegations levelled against them to be false.
20. ' The jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not additional or an alternative jurisdiction and powers vested in this Court were to be exercised sparingly to correct errors of law in exceptional cases. The extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked as an instrument in the hands of parties to short circuit the procedure.
21. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the Magistrate after holding preliminary inquiry and finding that a prima facie case was established brought this complaint on the file and issued process. The applicants have yet to prove their defence E given by them by way of counter-version.
22. Mere allegation in this application cannot lead to a conclusion that complaint was false.
23. Consequently, the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Stands dismissed.