M/s Crescent Star Insurance LImited Versus Eduljee Dinshaw (Private) LImited
Order
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J .--- The Applicant Ghulam Abbas alleges that on 05.07.2024, the private respondents forcefully entered his house, assaulted him and his sons, and threatened them with weapons. The petitioner claims that the trial Court's order of 22.08.2024 canceling the FIR No.292 of 2024 under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 506-B, P.P.C read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("ATA") is the erroneous decision and may be set aside. An excerpt of the order dated 22.8.2024 is reproduced as under:-
"Heard accepted."
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the trial Court's order granting bail to respondents Nos.3 to 7 was hasty, erroneous, and based on misreading of facts. The applicant further alleges that the police officers involved in the case acted with mala fide intentions and violated legal procedures. The Applicant seeks setting aside the bail order, re-investigation of the case by an honest officer, and inquiry against the police officers for their misconduct.
3. Learned APG has supported the impugned order agreed by the Magistrate with the report of the Investigating Officer for disposal of the case under "C" Class.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present in Court and have perused the material available on record.
5. The questions involved in the present proceedings are whether the offenses under Sections 452, 147,148,149 506-B, P.P.C read with Section 7 of the ATA were/are made out to allow the prosecution to proceed with the matter for decision on merit. And whether the Summary report submitted by the Investigating officer under "C" Class for disposal of the criminal case needs a detailed order to be passed by the Magistrate or he can simply agree with the report or otherwise.
6. Primarily, a "C-class" case cancellation means the police believe the complaint was mistaken and there was/is insufficient evidence against the accused for trial as such no further legal action would be taken against the accused. If the complainant disagrees, he may challenge the decision subject to strong evidence. Further, a summary report submitted under the "C" class for disposal of a criminal case is a procedure under criminal jurisprudence. It signifies that the investigation has been completed, and the Investigating Officer (IO) has recommended a course of action, often involving a discharge or acquittal. However, a simple order agreeing with the IO's recommendation can suffice in many cases. This is particularly true when the Investigation report is clear, concise, and supported by sufficient evidence because ultimately, the Magistrate can decide whether a detailed order is required or otherwise; and if a prima facie case does not exist, the criminal case can be summarily dismissed based solely on police recommendations.
7. Coming to the main case, it is alleged that a group of five or more people unlawfully entered the house of the complainant with the intent to harm, disturb the peace, or threaten the family. This can involve threats of death or grievous bodily harm. To attract the subject offences the accused must intend to cause fear or alarm to the victim. The Supreme Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Imran Nasarullah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1946) clarifies that once a threat is acted upon, Section 506(ii), P.P.C (criminal intimidation) no longer applies. Instead, the focus shifts to the specific crime committed as a result of the intimidation. However, in the present case, the police report reveals a contrary story with the narration that there was/is a dispute between a complainant/lawyer and his clients over unpaid legal fees. The complainant accused the clients of assault, but the police investigation found no supporting evidence. Witnesses claim the complainant and his sons attacked the accused's house. One accused had an alibi, and the complainant failed to seek medical attention for his allegedly injured sons. Due to insufficient evidence, the police released the accused and submitted a "C" class report to the Court which investigation report was accepted vide impugned order.
8. The Investigating Officer is responsible for conducting a thorough investigation, considering all evidence and perspectives. The final report should be based on facts, not just the complainant's version. The Magistrate, empowered by Section 190 of the Cr.P.C, has the authority to review the police report and decide whether to take cognizance of the case, regardless of the police's recommendation. On the previously mentioned proposition, the authoritative view of the Supreme Court is given in the cases of Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595), Muhammad Akbar v. State (1972 SCMR 335) and Falak Sher v. State (PLD 1967 SC 425).
9. A "C-class" disposal does not necessarily mean the case is closed forever. The right to file a direct complaint is available to the complainant who has been aggrieved by the decision of the presiding officer of the ATC Court to dispose of the case under the 'C' class. However, it is made clear that in a direct complaint, the burden of proof lies with the complainant.
10. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of.
JK/G-4/Sindh Order accordingly.