Mst. SAHIBZADI and 8 others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 2 others
This petition arises from a criminal matter where the petitioners challenge the summoning order issued by a Magistrate in a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1, alleging that the complaint was a counter-blast to an earlier FIR registered against respondent No. 1 and others, and suffered from unexplained delay and self-suffered injuries. The core legal question concerns whether the constitutional or high court jurisdiction should interfere with a summoning order when an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure exists. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners have an adequate remedy by appearing before the trial Magistrate and filing an application for acquittal under the relevant statutory provision. The court declined to interfere and directed the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the trial court, which was mandated to decide the application within a specified timeframe.
- Whether a petition against a summoning order is maintainable when an alternative remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
- Can an accused person approach the High Court directly without first seeking relief through an application before the trial Magistrate?
- Whether unexplained delay and self-suffered injuries in a private complaint warrant the setting aside of a summoning order in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that a case F.I.R. No,3 of 1997 was registered in Police Station, Chab Kahan, District Khanewal against respondent No,1 and nine others, which is still pending adjudication. He submits that now after two years a complaint has been filed by respondent No,1 in the Court of respondent No,2 against the petitioners in which they have been summoned by the learned Magistrate for 13-10-1998 vide his order, dated 25-7- 1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition, submits that allegedly two persons have been shown injured in the complainant case namely Ghulam Farid and Shaban. His contention is that nature of injuries are self-suffered and in this regard a Medical Board was constituted. Ghulam Farid had appeared before the Medical Board and it was the unanimous opinion of the Board that his injury was self-suffered, while Shaban did not appear which shows his guilty mind. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay in filing this complaint. He also submits that this complaint is counter-blast to the case F.I.R. No,3 of 1997. He has relied upon 1997 SCMR 292, 1989 PCr.LJ 478 and 1989 PCr.LJ 913. He has also relied upon 1993 PCr.LJ 2540.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Be that it may, petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No,2 and to make an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., which is an adequate remedy, who should decide the same within fortnight after filing of this application.
C.M.No,1 of 1998.
2. Allowed subject to all just legal exceptions and disposed of.
C.M.No,2 of 1998.
No ground. Dismissed.