SOOMAR KHAN vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal revision petition arose from the dismissal of a direct complaint by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The applicant had filed a complaint against a police officer, which was referred to a Magistrate for a preliminary inquiry. The Magistrate reported that a prima facie case existed for registration; however, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint without providing adequate reasons for rejecting the Magistrate's findings. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the complaint despite the Magistrate's positive inquiry report. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because it failed to assign sufficient reasons for disregarding the preliminary inquiry report, which had established a prima facie case. The Court emphasized that at the preliminary inquiry stage, the focus is solely on determining if the evidence warrants registration of a case. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the trial court was directed to register the case against the respondent and proceed in accordance with the law.
- Is a Sessions Judge required to provide reasons when rejecting a Magistrate's preliminary inquiry report in a direct complaint?
- What is the scope of a court's duty at the stage of a preliminary inquiry regarding a direct complaint?
- Can a revisional court set aside an order dismissing a complaint if the trial court failed to justify its disagreement with the preliminary inquiry findings?
' S.A. RABBANI, J.--- The applicant filed a direct complaint A against respondent S.-I. Abdul Hameed Khakhrani before II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who sent it to Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M.
Shikarpur for preliminary inquiry. After inquiry, the Magistrate submitted his report to the II- Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur that, prima facie, a case was made out for registration, but the latter took a converse view and dismissed the direct complaint filed by the applicant. This revision has, therefore, been filed.
2. Raja Sher Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the witnesses examined during the preliminary inquiry had supported the version of the applicant and the learned Magistrate conducting the inquiry found that, prima facie, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the respondent, but the Additional Sessions Judge, without assigning any reasons to reject the finding of the Magistrate, dismissed the direct complaint.
3. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General refers to the reply filed by the respondent Abdul Hameed, which mentions that the applicant is a criminal and is absconder in many cases.
The respondent Abdul Hameed also alleges that the applicant is a criminal and his son was arrested in a case and, therefore, he filed the complaint as a counterblast.
4. At the stage of the preliminary inquiry, the Court has to see whether the evidence placed on record makes out a case, prima facie, to register the case. In the present case, the inquiry report shows that there was sufficient evidence brought on record for that purpose. The order, dated 3-2- 2003, challenged in this revision does not give adequate reasons to reject the finding of the Magistrate who conducted the preliminary inquiry. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be maintained. In view of the findings in the preliminary inquiry, a case should have been registered against the respondent Sub-Inspector Abdul Hameed Khakhrani. The revision is accordingly allowed. The II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur shall register the case against him and proceed according to law.