MAZHAR ABBAS Versus THE STATE and another

ORDER

Petitioner Mazhar Abbas through the instant revision petition has sought for setting aside the order, dated 20‑2‑2004 recorded by Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot whereby he has summoned the petitioner and others m the private complaint brought by respondent No.2 against them under sections 337‑A(i)/337‑F(iii)/324, read with section 34, P.P.C.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that respondent No.2 Mst. Moondan had brought the private complaint against the petitioner‑ and two others under the mentioned above offences before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Chiniot She led preliminary evidence therein. The learned Magistrate seized of the same had observed that prima facie offence under sections 337‑A(i)/337‑F(iii) read with section 34. P.P.C. is made out against the accused mentioned in the complaint He, however, observed that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. is not made out against them in the facts and circumstances of the case, He with the same has submitted his inquiry report to the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, who vide his order, dated 20‑2‑2004 proceeded to observe that they prima facie are connected with the alleged offence on the basis of preliminary evidence present on the record and he ordered their summoning to face trial in the same.

3. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has come to this Court with the instant revision petition.

4. It has been argued on his behalf that the private complaint in fact is a counter‑blast to the case F.I.R. No.390 dated 4‑8‑2004 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Sadar Chiniot, District Jhang, and that the M.L.Rs. produced by the respondent No.2 in support of her plea in the private complaint are in fact bogus and on the basis of the same the petitioner and his co‑accused could not be summoned by the learned Court concerned; and that if the complaint is allowed to be continued, the same will be prejudicial to their case.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.

6. As said above that the respondent No.2 in support of her version in the private complaint besides her own self has produced as many as three witnesses. They are Noora, Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and Zafar. Besides than this, she has also produced the copies of M.L.Rs. of the injured, persons and these were mark "A" and "B respectively of Noora and Zafar. The learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of such preliminary inquiry has observed that the offence under sections 337‑A(i)/337‑F(iii) read with section 34, P.P.C. is made out against the accused mentioned by her in the private complaint. He submitted the reports the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, who after perusing the same and preliminary inquiry evidence brought on the record observed that prima facie sufficient material is available on the record to connect them with the offence allegedly committed by them. He, with the same has ordered to summon them to face trial in the complaint. The plea of the petitioner that the complaint is counter‑blast to the said case is a matter, which in'' fact requires evidence for its determination and it cannot be done so on the basis of mere oral assertion. The question that if M.L.Rs. of the injured persons produced by her in support of her plea are bogus is a question, which too requires to be proved in due course of. trial. The same without adequate proof of the same cannot be said to be so. The petitioner in fact ought to have agitated such questions before the Court concerned in a proper way. Their summoning, however, was correct.

7. Hence, no case for interference with the impugned order has been made out. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./M‑177/L Revision petition dismissed.