Muhammad Riaz vs Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal etc
This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, which set aside a Magistrate's order dismissing a private complaint. The core legal question was whether a complainant, dissatisfied with the police investigation and the subsequent challan, is precluded from filing a private complaint after the charge has already been framed in the state-led criminal case. The Lahore High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's decision, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the private complaint solely because the state case had progressed to the stage of prosecution evidence. The key principle laid down is that a complainant possesses an inherent legal right to file a private complaint against accused persons if they are dissatisfied with the police investigation, regardless of the stage of the state-led criminal proceedings. The Court affirmed that the complainant is not restricted to merely seeking the addition of offences within the existing state case but may pursue a private complaint to address their grievances regarding the investigation.
- Can a complainant file a private complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police investigation?
- Does the framing of a charge in a state-led criminal case bar the filing of a private complaint by the complainant?
- Is a Magistrate empowered to dismiss a private complaint solely because the state case has reached the stage of prosecution evidence?
- Section 337-F(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question judgment dated 9.4.201 4 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, whereby he set aside the order dated 21.5.2013 passe d by learned Magistrate Section 30, Narowal.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2014, passed by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Narowal is against law and facts; that respondent No.2 has got registered a criminal case vide FIR No.57/2012 dated 28.3.2012, under Sections 337-F(II), 337-L(II), 506, 147/149, PPC at Police Station, Raba Khas District Narowal, against petitioner and others. During investigation, five accused persons were found guilty while remaining accused persons were declared innocent and placed them in column No.2 of the challan. The challan has been submitted and case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Then the respondent has filed a private complaint against the accused persons with addition of offence under Section 324, PPC. Learned Addi: Sessions Judge Narowal has not examined the real facts of the case and set aside the order dated 21.052013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Narowal.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and pursuing the record annexed with the petition, it is observed that respondent No.2 has lodged a criminal case FIR No.57/2012 dated 28.3.2012 under Sections 337-F(II), 337- L(II), 506, 147/149, PPC at Police Station, Raba Khas District Narowal against Amjad Ali and others. During investigation, five accused were found guilty and remaining accused were declared innocent and placed in column No.2 of Challan. When case was fixed for prosecution evidence, complainant has filed a private complaint under Sections 324/337-A(1), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 342, 506, 147 & 149, PPC against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate Section 30, Narowal, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that in criminal case charge has been framed and case was fixed for prosecution evidence; the complainant inspite of producing his witnesses in the Court, filed the private complaint despite the fact that he has a right to record his statement in the Court and to file an application for insertion/addition of offence under Section 324, PPC. There is no cavil on the proposition that complainant has right to file a private complaint against the accused persons, being dissatisfied with the Investigating Agency . The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly after appreciating the facts and law set aside the order dated 21.5.2013, passe d by learned Magistrate Section-30, Narowal, which is well reasoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality , material irregularity or jurisdictional defects in the impugned order . Therefore, instant petition is dismissed in limine.