LIAQAT ALI and 2 others vs IFTIKHAR AHMED and 4 others
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11-7-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners to face trial in a private complaint for murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court could brush aside the inquiry report submitted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 recommending dismissal of the complaint without applying its judicial mind and giving a speaking order. The Lahore High Court held that while an inquiry report is not strictly binding, it cannot be brushed aside lightly without a tentative evaluation of evidence and probabilities, especially in a murder case involving the agony of trial. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial court to pass a fresh speaking order after hearing both parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must apply its judicial mind and properly evaluate an inquiry report rather than discarding it summarily.
- Can a trial court discard an inquiry report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without evaluating the evidence and probabilities?
- Whether an order issuing bailable warrants against accused persons in a private complaint requires a speaking order addressing the inquiry report?
- Is an inquiry report submitted by a Magistrate binding upon the trial court seized of a private complaint?
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 11-7-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 against the petitioners to face the trial in a private complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Iftikhar Ahmed respondent No,1 filed a private complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorist Activities, Rawalpindi against the petitioners-accused with the allegation that they murdered Mumtaz Ahmed brother of the complainant. The learned Special Judge entrusted inquiry of this private complaint to Special Judicial Magistrate, Rawalpindi, who after recording and examining the evidence recommended dismissal of the complaint, but the learned trial Court disagreeing with the inquiry report of the learned Judicial Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the petitioners to face the trial vide the impugned order, which is being assailed in this criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is not a speaking one. He adds that the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 202, Cr.P.C. Was brushed aside by the learned trial Court without applying its judicial mind.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the State counsel opposed this petition and supported the order of the learned trial Court.
5. On institution of private complaint by Respondent No,1 the learned trial Court entrusted inquiry to Mr. Muhammad Akram Bhatti, Special Judicial Magistrate. He inquired into the matter and submitted his report in Court. According to him the presence of the complainant and the witnesses at the time of occurrence and their running away in order to save their lives, when the assailants, were chasing them while armed with deadly weapons is not substantiated. This is the reason that none from the area where the murder was committed came up to support the contents of the private complaint. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the report, only, for the reason that it is not binding on it. He also avoided to make deeper appreciation of the evidence.
6. The petitioners are being summoned in a murder case which involves agony of trial, consummation of time and money beside hardship. The petitioners case was, therefore, required to be looked into even tentatively by evaluating evidence and examining probabilities. The report of the Special Magistrate cannot be brushed aside lightly; that it is not binding.
7. In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to pass a fresh speaking order, after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties. Disposed of.