Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 5 others
This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioner sought to set aside a revisional order that had accepted a police cancellation report, thereby discharging the accused respondents. The core legal question was whether the revisional court erred in law by accepting the police's cancellation report and discharging the accused, despite the petitioner's allegations of biased investigation and collusion between the police and the accused. The High Court held that the revisional court had passed a well-reasoned and speaking order based on the findings of the investigating officer, which had been verified by senior police officials and the public prosecutor. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, noting that the investigation was based on sound reasoning regarding the non-occurrence of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed that if a complainant remains aggrieved by the acceptance of a cancellation report, the appropriate legal remedy is to file a private complaint rather than invoking inherent jurisdiction to challenge the discharge order.
- Can a High Court interfere with a revisional order that accepts a police cancellation report if the order is well-reasoned?
- Is a private complaint the appropriate remedy for a complainant aggrieved by the acceptance of a police cancellation report?
- Does the acceptance of a cancellation report by a revisional court constitute a valid discharge of the accused?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. the petitioner assails the vires of order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi, and agreed to the cancellation report prepared by the police.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is against the law and fact; that the same has been passed without appreciating that the police was in league with the accused, who were also police officials; that investigating officer had not conducted impartial investigation; that the learned trial Court has rightly dis-agreed with the cancellation report; that learned revisional Court was under legal obligation to apply its independent mind without being influence by the biased investigation but it failed to perform its duty, hence, the impugned order is liable to be Set aside.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed this petition while arguing that the impugned order has legally been passed and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4. It divulges from the record that the police has submitted cancellation report dated 05.4.2020 on the ground that one of the accused namely Shakeel Butt A.S.I. has been murdered on 06.01.2020 at Wah Cantt whereas Shahzad Constable and Sardar Abbasi, A.S.I. CIA were not employees of CIA Islamabad at the time of alleged occurrence and after inquiry from the place of occur rence it transpired that no such occurrence ever took place. The report prepared by Investigating Officer was duly verified by S.P. Potohar Division Rawalpindi and learned Assistant/ Deputy Public Prosecutor . Keeping A in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as findings of investigating officer, based on sound reasoning, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly agreed with the said cancellation report and discharged Respondents No. 2 to 4 from the case vide order dated. 12.03.2021.
Learned revisional Court after discussing the entire case has passed a well reasoned speaking order . I see no reason to interfere in the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the conclusion reached at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge she can file a private complaint.
5. For what has been discussed above, I find no force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.