MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE

ORDER

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, dated 16-8-1993 passed by respondent No.2 (Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station Chhanga Manga) discharging respondent No. 3 from the case F.I.R. No.141/93 dated 5-7-1993 registered at Police Station Chhanga Manga, Tehsil Chunian under section 302/34, P.P.C. Muhammad Siddique petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.

2. The brief facts are that a case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered at the instance of the petitioner against. Muhammad Aslam, Manzoor Ahmad, and Waqar that they took away Muhammad Ramzan, his son towards his Dera and there they committed his murder with the motive that they had the suspicion that Aslam's daughter Mst. Zakia had some illicit relation with the deceased.

3. The grievance as highlighted by the petitioner through this petition is that at the time of lodging the F.I.R. he had nominated Sher Muhammad respondent No.3 as one of the accused but his name does not find mention in the F.I.R. He made supplementary statement to that effect but during investigation the police has found him innocent who has got him discharged from the murder through the impugned order so7the same be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.7 was arrested by the police in the case and was also sent to judicial lock-up but even then they have got him discharged from the case when according to the petitioner he had participated in the occurrence. It was also argued that respondent No.2 while passing the impugned discharge order, dated 16-8-1993 has failed to look into the police diaries and also failed to scrutinise the investigation and did not make up his mind independently, when he was under a duty to look into the entire facts of the case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also gone through the material placed on record. I find that Sher Muhammad accused was not named in the F.I.R. by the petitioner himself as an accused in the case. He made a supplementary statement in which he added his name but on the basis of that statement the case was investigated by the Investigating Agency including the D.S.P. Headquarters where he was found innocent. The police even recommended his discharge from the case so he made an application to the Ilaqa Magistrate who after perusing the reports and also the opinion of the D.S.P. (Legal) discharged the accused. I do not agree with the learned counsel that the impugned order is not the result of independent application of mind by the respondent No.2 to the facts adduced on record by the Investigating Agency. In this case it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has rendered his discretion subservient to the police dictates and he has acted in a pure mechanical fashion. He has applied his mind and after having gone into the evidence adduced on record, formulated his own opinion and then discharged the case. I, therefore, find no force in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-1423/L Petition dismissed.