MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs ALLAQA JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE and otherss
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his constitutional petition arising from the dismissal of his private criminal complaint against certain respondents. The petitioner had alleged that the respondents committed offenses including house trespass, theft, and wrongful confinement over a property dispute. The Judicial Magistrate had declined to issue process to certain female respondents while summoning their co-accused, a view upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to summon the female respondents based on an appreciation of the evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient grounds to proceed against the female respondents were unexceptionable, noting the implausibility of the alleged roles attributed to them. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent factual findings based on evidence will not be interfered with lightly.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the summoning of accused persons warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a magistrate decline to issue process to certain accused persons while summoning others based on the appreciation of preliminary evidence?
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against concurrent orders dismissing a private criminal complaint?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 16-5-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,6321 of 2003.
2. The petitioner filed a private criminal complaint against respondents Nos.3 to 6 and others under sections 452, 380, 427, 454, 342, 148 and 149, P.P.C. He alleged therein that he was owner in possession of a plot measuring 5 Kanals and 17 Marlas situated in Mouza Goronowan Wali, Tehsil and District, Sheikhupura. One Muhammad Suleman had his residential house on the western side of the plot whereas respondent No,3 Mst. Bashiran Bibi had her land on the northern side of the said plot. It was further stated that the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and others had illegally fixed a door in the wall in respect of which a dispute had been settled on 9-2-1993 on the intervention of the elders after some litigation. As a consequence thereof, Muhammad Suleman closed the door by giving an undertaking in writing that he would not create any hurdle or use the plot of the complainant otherwise he would be liable to pay Rs,50,000 as fine. Muhammad Suleman also made a statement in the Court that he had closed his door facing the plot in question and would abstain from doing so in future. At about 2-00 p.m. On 5th October, 2002 when the petitioner was repairing demolished walls on his plot the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and others came there and started demolishing the boundary walls. It was further alleged that the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 had a scuffle with him while their co-accused kept on raising Lalkaras.
3. After recording the evidence of the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate, Police Station, Manawala, District Sheikhupura, by order, dated 17-3-2003 declined to issue any process to the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 while their co-accused were summoned. The criminal revision thereagainst was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, by order dated 14-4-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner moved Writ Petition No,6321 of 2003 which also was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned order, dated 10-5-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were equally involved in the commission of offence along with their male accused who had been summoned by the trial Court to face the trial . It was next contended that it was not possible to sever the evidence against the male and female accused.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. All the three Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact after appreciation of evidence that there was no ground for proceeding against the respondents Nos.3 to 6 who were ladies. In the ordinary course of things, it did not make sense that the male members would keep on raising Lalkaras only leaving it for the household ladies to have a scuffle with the petitioner and then to lift him to the drawing room for confining him for hours. The view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. This is not fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.