Mst. RASOOLAN BIBI vs THE STATE and anothers

' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 13-7-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No,365 of 1997.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on the statement of Mutali Khan, respondent No,2 herein, F.I.R. No,501 of 1994, dated 29-10-1994, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Khathala Sheikhan. After the investigation, the police challaned Bati, Ansar Iqbal accused and placed Ahmed, Muhammad Ansar, Allah Yar, Khizra and Sabir in column No,2.

' Mst. Kalsoom Bibi petitioner, though an eye-witness of the occurrence, but not shown as a witness in the calendar of witnesses, filed W.P. No,14436 of 1994 in the High Court, wherein a direction was issued on 7-12-1994 for recording her statement. Pursuant to the said direction her statement was recorded and the case was reinvestigated by the Crime Branch, wherein Mutali Khan respondent was also arrayed as an accused in Column No,3 along with Bati, Ansar etc. Mutali filed a complaint against Ahmad, Muhammad Ansar and Allahyar etc. Under sections 148, 302/149, P.P.C. For the murder of Faiz Ahmed deceased, which is still pending in the Court. After the submission of final report, the Court decided to proceed in the State case and fixed the case for framing of charge.

However, vide a subsequent order, dated 23-10-1997 the learned Additional Sessions Judge stayed the proceedings in the State case till the finalization of the complaint case.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Mst. Rasoolan Bibi petitioner filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The main reason which prevailed with the learned High Court was that since the sets of the accused and the evidence to be led in the State case and the complaint case were different, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court was unexceptionable. Challenging the order of the learned High Court Mst. Rasoolan Bibi petitioner, aunt of Fiaz Ahmad deceased has petitioned to this Court, contending that the orders passed by the High Court and the trial Court are not sustainable in law and the proceedings in the State case were not liable to be stayed, merely on the basis of filing the complaint for mala fide reasons i,e, to delay the proceedings indefinitely. The orders of the learned High Court and the trial Court about the trial of the complaint case in the first instance are based on the principles laid down in Nur Elahi v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 708), which provides that complaint case shall be taken up first for trial and the police challan case to be taken up thereafter in the cross-cases based on private complaint and police challan. Thus, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders.

' The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to pronounce judgments in both the cases simultaneously to avoid prejudice to any of the parties arrayed before it.