Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 31 of 1981, decided on 15th. May, 1982.

-- Ss. 200 and 203 read with S. 249-A-Complaint, dismissal of --- Petitioner producing Medical Officer who examined injured witnesses in evidence but further failing to produce evidence on two consecutive dates of hearing---Petitioner, however, showing sufficient cause for not producing evidence on next dates of hearing-Held: It could not be said in circumstances that charge was groundless so as to attract provisions of S. 249-A, Cr. P. C.---A private complaint, held further, deserves as much consideration as a Police case and should not tie dealt with casually.

Zia-ul-Qamar for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Sadiq and Aziz Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 15th May, 1982.

A complaint under sections 307, 420, 406, 506, 342 read' with section 34, P. P. C. was made by the petitioner in the Court of Malik Bashir Ahmad Awan, Magistrate section 30, Lahore. The respondents were summoned after preliminary evidence, under sections 307 and 420, P. P. C. The case was fixed for evidence of the complainant for 17th June, 1981 but it was adjourned that day on the request of the petitioner on account of the death of his father. On 6th July, 1981 to which date the case was adjourned again for the evidence, another application was made, by the petitioner for adjournment on the ground that the mother of his learned counsel, Mr. Zia-ul-Qamar, Advocate, was ill and that on that account the learned counsel was not able to appear. This application was, however, rejected by the trial Court and the complaint was dismissed the same day under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 6th July, 1981 was admitted to regular hearing and a notice has been given to the respondents.

2. Section 249-A, Cr. P. C. can be applied where it appears to the trial Court that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of the accused being convicted. In the present case evidence was led by the petitioner of the Medical Officer who examined the injured witnesses. It. was, therefore, a case where an offence involving hurt had been committed. Whether the respondents were guilty of this offence is of course, a matter for trial but it cannot be denied that some offence at least of hurt had been committed. The respondents were actually summoned to face charges under sections 307 and 420, P. P. C. It could, therefore, not be said that the charge was groundless. It is true that the petitioner failed .to produce his evidence on two consecutive dates of hearing but he gave sufficient cause for this purpose. On 17th June, 1981 the petitioner's father had died and his request for adjournment was accepted. On. 6th July, 1981 the request for adjournment was based on the illness of the mother of Mr. Zia-ul-Qamar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court did not enquire into the fact whether the mother of Mr. Zia-ul-Qamar, Advocate, had fallen ill or not but straightaway rejected the application.

3. It is obvious that preliminary evidence was led to show that an offence has been committed. In the presence of such evidence, the learned Magistrate has been rather hasty in getting rid of a private complaint. A private complaint deserves as much consideration as a police case and should not be dealt with casually. There was no justification to apply section 249-A, Cr. P. C. to the case and of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondents of the charges against them the petition is, therefore, accepted. The order of the trial Court dated 6th July, 1981 is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.