FARMAN ALI vs TANDI BAKHT and 3 others
This criminal revision application challenges the trial court's dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after cognizance had already been taken and charges framed. The applicant argued that the court erred by dismissing the case without recording prosecution evidence. The State contended that the complaint was frivolous, filed years after the alleged incident, and lacked medical evidence, thus justifying the dismissal. The High Court held that once cognizance is taken and charges are framed, the proper legal course is to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before disposing of the matter, particularly regarding applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court set aside the dismissal and directed the trial court to record the evidence of the four listed prosecution witnesses within two months, while granting the applicant liberty to move for disposal under Section 265-K if appropriate during the proceedings.
- Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to record prosecution evidence before disposing of a case under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.---Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that after taking cognizance of the matter by order, dated 24-10-2002 and framing of charge the learned Presiding Officer should have recorded the evidence in order to scrutinize the matter properly, without recording statement of prosecution witness, dispose of case under section 203, Cr.P.C. Is miscarriage of justice.
2. ' Conversely Ms. Afsheen Aman, learned counsel for the State argued that no prejudice has caused to applicant. Prima facie direct A complaint lodged by applicant in 2002 for an alleged incident happened in January, 1998 appears to be false and frivolous. Even if as per, applicant's own statement, in Jirga respondent No.1 had admitted her guilt and she was penalized by Jirga, no explanation is given by applicant that in spite of admission of respondent No.1, why no complaint or F.I.R. Was got lodged by. The applicant earlier to 19-7-2002. No medical report has also been placed on record in proof of poisoning to the applicant. Thus according to learned State counsel trial Court was justified in disposing of case as there was no probability of conviction of accused persons.
3. ' No doubt argument advanced by learned State counsel appeals to reason, but after taking cognizance and framing of charge, proper course would have been to record the statement of at least main prosecution witness before disposal of any application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Only four witnesses have been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint. Learned trial Court is directed to record evidence of four prosecution witnesses within a period of two months. During pendency if applicant deems it proper to move any application for disposal of case under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Because of any progress, he is at liberty to do so.
4. ' Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.