Mst. SHABBANA NAZ BUTT vs Mst. HUKAM JAN and others

ORDER

' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---This petition under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against judgment, dated 24-9-1995 passed by a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby petitioner Mst. Shabbana Naz Butt's Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, under section 411-A(2), Cr.P.C. Against the judgment of Illaqa Magistrate, Rawalpindi, dated 9-8-1995 acquitting the respondent/accused by allowing their application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts forming the background of this case are that petitioner Mst. Shabbana Naz Butt made a private complaint against the respondents for offences under sections 323/308/341/342/506/34, P.P.C. Alleging that she was administered severe beating by the respondents with Soti, Danda and Sarya on 2-10-1990. The complaint was filed on 6-10-1990. The accused were summoned by a learned Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi and charge was framed against them and it was during the pendency of the case before a learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawalpindi that they sought their acquittal in terms of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Their plea in support of the application that the complainant side is interested in prolonging their miseries and have failed to produce even a single prosecution witness, after framing of charge against them, in the past more than 7 years, did not find favour with the learned Judicial Magistrate. The accused were acquitted on 9-8-1995.

3. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench declined grant of Special Leave to Appeal to the petitioner/ complainant vide the impugned judgment, dated 24-9-1995 as follows:-- "4. The trial Court while recording acquittal of the respondents had observed in its order that the prosecution had delayed the trial by having resort to dilatory tactics and that despite lapse of three years after framing of the charge on 29-10-1992 not a single prosecution .Witness has been examined and that the complainant had been moving the learned Sessions Judge unnecessarily for blocking the progress of the trial. The observations of the learned trial Court appear to be well placed and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, acquittal of the respondents was done justifiably. The respondents have suffered the agony of trial numerous off shoots of litigation for a considerable time. No merit is found in the petition which is dismissed in limine."

4. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner who tried to argue that between the date of submission of private complaint by the present petitioner before the then Judicial Magistrate, Rawalpindi i.e. 5-10-1990 and the date of impugned judgment i.e. 24-9-1995, there were special reasons revolving around the matter being taken to the Appellate/ Revisional forums for the purposes of keeping the trial of the case on the right rails. The excerpts from the order sheet of the Trial Court were referred to during the argument but the same related to only the 'Chitha' between 7-10-1990 and 16-1-1992. When asked to point out whether the prosecution witnesses were ever summoned by the petitioner side, he candidly submitted that no such material is available with him. What meets the eye is that between 16-1-1992 and the date of the decision of the application of the accused under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. i.e. 9-8-1995, there was no progress made in the case for the purposes of even summoning the evidence muchless resorting to coercive measures in that regard. Petitioner is herself to blame for the predicament in which she is placed today. A careful a perusal of the material placed on the record at pages 31 to 80 shows that no prosecution witness has been examined so far in support of petitioner's complaint and that the petitioner did not even so much as ask for issuing process by the trial Court for summoning her witnesses in the case.

' For all that has gone before, we are of the view that no ground for allowing this petition has been made out. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.