CH. MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs NOOR DIN and 13 others
This revision petition challenges an order of the Civil Judge/Magistrate First Class, Mirpur, which dismissed an application to summon additional accused persons who were previously placed in column 02 of the police challan. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon these individuals despite the complainant's assertion that prosecution witnesses implicated them. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the application was premature. The Court reasoned that only one prosecution witness had been examined, and the statements of the remaining eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer had not yet been recorded. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence on record to justify summoning the accused at that stage. The Court affirmed the trial Magistrate's order, emphasizing that the decision to summon additional accused must be based on reliable evidence, which was currently lacking. The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
- Is an application to summon additional accused persons placed in column 02 of the challan premature if only one prosecution witness has been examined?
- Does a trial Magistrate have the discretion to defer the summoning of additional accused until further prosecution evidence is recorded?
- Can a revision petition succeed against an order refusing to summon accused persons when the trial court's order is based on cogent reasons regarding the insufficiency of evidence?
- Section 147, Azad Penal Code
- Section 148, Azad Penal Code
- Section 149, Azad Penal Code
- Section 427, Azad Penal Code
- Section 452, Azad Penal Code
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
' This revision petition has been directed against the order of Civil Judge/Magistrate First Class Mirpur dated 15.10.2011, through which an application for summoning the accused/respondents was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 452 APC is pending before the Court of Civil Judge/ Magistrate First Class Mirpur for disposal. During recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner/complainant submitted an application for summoning the accused/respondents who were discharged and placed in column 02 of the challan. The learned Civil Judge/ Magistrate dismissed the application after hearing the parties on 25.06.2007. The present petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court, stating therein that the trial Magistrate has recorded his findings declaring the accused persons placed in column 02 of the challan as innocent persons, which was not warranted by law.
The said revision petition was accepted and the order under revision dated 25.06.2007 was set- aside and the trial Magistrate was directed to dispose of the said application as warranted by law.
Later on the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties dismissed the said application for summoning the accused/respondents on 15.10.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner/complainant has preferred the instant revision petition before this Court.
3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Anees Riaz Arvi Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses have categorically implicated the accused/ respondents placed in column 02 of the challan, so it was enjoined upon the trial Magistrate to summon the accused/ respondents. It was further argued that sufficient material against the accused/respondents has been placed by the prosecution on record, which shows the involvement of the accused/respondents in commission of the offences mentioned in the First Information Report. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition setting- aside the order under revision and to issue directions for summoning the accused/ respondents for trial.
4. While controverting, Ch. Tahseen Ahmed Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that nothing was proved regarding involvement of the respondents in commission of the said offences during investigation. The Investigating Officer was justified to discharge the accused/respondents under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. The accused/respondents were falsely implicated with the occurrence. The learned trial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application under revision petition. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the revision petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record carefully and minutely. The record reveals that 13 witnesses have been endorsed as prosecution witnesses in the challan. Five (05) witnesses have been shown as eyewitnesses regarding the occurrence. The statement of only one witness Muhammad Rafique has been recorded yet and the statements of remaining eye-witnesses have to be recorded later on. So, no reliable proof has been placed on record yet to show that the accused/respondents are involved in commission of the offences. It will be just and proper to pass any order regarding summoning of the respondents after recording the statements of all the eye-witnesses including the Investigating Officer. No proof in support of the version taken by the petitioner/complainant has been placed on record. Even, the copy of statement of the prosecution witness Muhammad Rafique _ has not been placed on record. The application for summoning the respondents is pre-mature, which cannot be allowed in the light of circumstances of the case.
' Having in view the above discussed circumstances, the trial Magistrate has recorded the order under revision petition having sound and cogent reasons, which need no indulgence by this Court.
So, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. The trial Magistrate is hereby directed to dispose of the case as early as possible.