MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN vs THE STATE

' By this criminal revision, applicant/complainant, Muhammad Ishaque Khan has challenged the impugned order under section 203, Cr.P.C., passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Provincial, Karachi.

2. The facts as set forth in the memo. Of application are that applicant is Traffic Supervisor in Karachi Port Trust. In the year 1994 his taxi, which was being driven by his son, was illegally removed by Shamsur Rehman and others and it was disposed of by them. He moved the executive authorities but of no avail and thereafter they locked in litigation of different type. It is further stated that accused Nos.2 to 6 in collusion with accused No,1, who was Sub-Inspector Police (not named in memo. Nor joined as respondents) implicated the applicant and his two sons in Crime No,61 of 1996 under sections 380, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. They were sent up in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No,III, Karachi (West) and subsequently, acquitted on 20-4-1998.

3. After his acquittal in the case mentioned hereinabove, the applicant filed direct complaint under sections 217, 218, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi, against the complainant, prosecution witnesses and Investigating Officer of the above case alleging therein that the applicant alongwith his two sons was booked in a false case and the complainant and prosecution witnesses deposed against him falsely.

4. I have heard Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Syed Jalil Hashmi, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. Latter has supported the impugned order. I have also perused the material placed on record.

5. The contention of learned counsel is that the learned Special Judges has erred in law by dismissing the complaint without holding preliminary enquiry and examining the P.Ws. Cited in the complaint. He has further contended that the impugned order is not maintainable in law. I do not agree with the above contentions. They are misconceived.

6. If the Court on receiving the complaint and after recording the statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. Finds that no prima facie case is made out and that holding preliminary enquiry as contemplated under section 202, Cr.P.C. Would be an exercise in futility, the Court can dismiss the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. For taking cognizance in the matter under section 204, Cr.P.C. Or for dismissal of complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. It is not condition precedent that the Court must examine witnesses cited in the complaint as laid down under section 202(4), Cr.P.C. The sole criteria is satisfaction of the Court about the correctness of the complaint or otherwise.

7. It is observed by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shamim v. The State PLD 1966 SC 178, that the aim and object of section 200, Cr.P.C. Is to protect the public against false, frivolous or vexatious complaints filed against them in original Courts and the Magistrates must not lightly accept written complaints and proceed to issue processes until they have thoroughly sifted the allegations made against the accused and are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against those who are accused of criminal offences.

8. I have perused the copy of the complaint annexed with application. From the plain reading of complaint, it appears that prima facie no offence under sections 217, 218, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was made out. Consequently, it was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. In the result, this application stands dismissed.