MUHAMMAD BOOTA Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ORDER

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.--- Assailed herein is order dated 20-8-2014 of a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore whereby he declined to issue process against the accused arrayed in a private complaint on the charge of homicide. The issue cropped up in the aftermath of incident dated 14-8-2012 reported by Ghulam Abbas who alleged murder of his brother Farhan Ali at the hands of Muhammad Boota, Muhammad Javed, Farman Ali, Muhammad Shahzad, Muhammad Naveed, Muhammad Abbas, Waqas, Muhammad Javed, Haider Ali and Muhammad Mubeen, relatives of deceased's wife Sajida Bibi, arrived at the scene in a vehicle driven by Abdul Aleem with the assistance of Haroon. Motive for the crime was an altercation between Sajida Bibi wife of Muhammad Yaqoob with some family members, reported by the former to her parents. The accused side through Muhammad Boota petitioner herein, came up with a different story through a private complaint instituted as late as on 5-7-2014 wherein deceased' brother Ghulam Abbas, complainant in the police case alongside five others was blamed to have murdered the deceased. The bottom line is that on the fateful day the complainant accompanied by other family members visited his daughter to complain her maltratment when Ghulam Abbas on the instigation of her mother fired upon the visitors, resulting into injuries to the deceased while the entourage survived assault unscathed. Petitioner's attempt for a cross version through assistance of a Justice of Peace having statedly failed on account of respondents influence left him with no option but to institute the private complaint which met with no better fate.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner through credible evidence succeeded to constitute 'sufficient grounds' within the contemplation of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and, thus, the learned trial Judge ought to have issued the process to judicially examine his version introduced soon after the occurrence; that the deceased family had, entered into an unholy alliance to hush up the real incident, with a view to save a family member from penal consequences in a most heinous crime and, thus, intervention by this Court would be most called for inasmuch as, the learned trial Court would be ideally placed to appraise both versions side by side, so as to arrive at a just conclusion based upon truth.

3. Heard.

4. It goes without saying that process within the contemplation of section 204 of the Code ibid shall issue upon existence of 'sufficient grounds' to be contemplated on the basis of cursory evidence. Formation of opinion by the Court does not require a full dressed rehearsal nor anticipated failure of complainant's case would stand in impediment thereof, however, phrases 'sufficient grounds' and 'in the opinion of Court' are expressions of higher import than mere accusations in contradistinction of information within the meaning of section 154 of the Code ibid and thus, issuance of process would require availability of proof in terms of Articles 117, 118, 119 and 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, therefore, 'formulation of opinion' is not an exercise, to be carried out subjectively; on the contrary, it must be based upon some verifiable material, capable of being transformed into evidence in order to sustain the charge and therefore, issuance of process would warrant a more objective and thoughtful consideration particularly in cases where contra investigation or prosecution consequent thereupon, structured upon cogent material/evidence, is already in progress. A cross version is distinguishable from a defence version and while there can be no hard or fast rule to be applied with empirical exactitude in every case, a defence plea alone in the absence of tangible material or forensic support, having regard to the nature of charge, cannot be received as cross version so as to bring the accused and the accuser side by side in the dock, particularly when the exercise manifestly appears to be calculated to subvert a well-founded prosecution's case. Comments by this Court on the factual side need to be avoided lest it may adversely impact upon the case of either side, nonetheless, having found no material illegality or flaw, it can be safely concluded that the impugned order is not open to exception. Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2014 fails. Petition is dismissed.

MH/M-205/L Petition dismissed.