Raja Muhammad Razzaq Etc. vs Rozi Khan And Another
This criminal revision petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, summoning the petitioners to face trial in a private complaint. The core legal question concerns the legality of the summoning order based on cursory statements of witnesses recorded in a private complaint running parallel to police proceedings under an FIR. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a tentative assessment based on the cursory statements implicating the petitioners with specific roles provides sufficient ground for summoning, subject to later scrutiny during cross-examination. The Court laid down the principle that cursory statements properly signed by the presiding officer and explicitly attributing roles provide a valid basis for taking cognizance and issuing summons, distinguishing cases where unexplained and inordinate delays exist in filing private complaints.
- Whether a summoning order can be based on a tentative assessment of cursory statements of witnesses in a private complaint?
- Does the recording of cursory statements without being entirely in the handwriting of the presiding officer vitiate a summoning order?
- Whether a private complaint filed shortly after an FIR can proceed and form the basis for summoning accused persons?
- Section 279, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, calls in question order dated 26.09.2012 recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial in complaint case titled "Rozi Khan v. Rauaq etc."
2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of this criminal revision are that a case vide F.I.R. No. 668, dated 29,08.2012 under Sections 279,320, P.P.C. P.S. Pirwadhai, Rawalpindi stood registered against petitioners, whereafter report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Rawalpindi. Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint against the petitioners which was entrusted to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who took cognizance of the same and summoned them for 11.10.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cursory statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are neither written in the hands, of learned Presiding Officer nor it was dictated by him; therefore, the petitioners could not be summoned; that no complaint was lodged against the Investigating Officer before the Higher police hierarchy; that the respondent No. 1 has made improvements in the private complaint by involving the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 besides petitioner No. 7; that the private complaint is not supported by postmortem report of the deceased Muhammad Yousaf; that requirement of Section 302, P.P.C, were not complied with; that the impugned order passed against the petitioners in order to damage the prestige and honour of the petitioners in the society as whole family being transporters have been involved.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, gone through the summoning order and the cursory statements of the witnesses alongwith documents annexed with this petition. The cursory statements of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 specifically mentioned the names of petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 with specific role. Statements so recorded are duly signed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The impugned order does not appear to be illegal inasmuch as tentative assessment based on the cursory statements form basis for summoning order which, of course, will be scrutinized/weighed when the right of cross-examination would be given to the petitioners. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Zafar and other*v. Umer Hayat and others (2010 SCM R 1816) does not support the petitioners as the same is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case for the reasons that there was a delay of 8 months in lodging the private complaint. F.I.R, was recorded on 29.08.2012 and private complaint was filed on 12.09.2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order, which is hereby up-held and this criminal revision is dismissed in limine.