FARMAN ALI vs TANDI BAKHT and 3 others
This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after the court had already taken cognizance and framed a charge. The core legal question was whether a trial court, having proceeded to the stage of framing a charge, can summarily dismiss a complaint without recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The High Court held that once cognizance is taken and a charge is framed, the trial court is required to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses rather than disposing of the matter summarily. The court reasoned that while the State's argument regarding the potential lack of conviction probability had merit, the proper procedural course after framing a charge is to allow for the recording of evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal and directed the trial court to record the evidence of the four listed prosecution witnesses within two months, while preserving the applicant's right to move an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the charge has already been framed?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to record prosecution evidence once a charge has been framed in a criminal case?
- Does the procedure under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the recording of prosecution evidence before disposal?
- Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. 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 disposed of case under Section 203, Cr.P.C. is an miscarriage of, justice.
2. Conversely Ms. Afsheen Aman, learned counsel for the State argued that no prejudice has caused to applicant. Prima facie direct 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 penalised by Jirga, no explanation is given by applicant that in spite of admission of Respondent No, 1, why no complaint or FIR was got lodged by the applicant earlier to 19.07.2002. 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.
4. Only four witnesses have been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed alongwith the complaint.
5. 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.