IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

          Crl. Revision Appl. No. 91 of 2018

 

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE.

 

For the hearing of the main case.

 

 

Date of hearing              20.01.2020.

 

 

Mr. Raj Kumar D. Rajput Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Mohammad Saleh Bhutto Advocate for respondents No.3 to 9.

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo DPG.

                   ***************

             

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J:-           Through instant revision application, applicant Talloo Mal has impugned order dated 06.10.2018 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur whereby the direct complainant No.01 of 2017 Re- Talloo Mal v. Aijaz and others was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

 

2.                Brief facts of the instant revision application are that the applicant has General Store/shop in Shahi Bazar, Rohri which he runs along with his sons Ravi Kumar and Vicky Kumar. It is alleged that on 01.03.2017 the respondents armed with lathies and hammers in their hands trespassed in the shop of the complainant it was about 6:00 pm they robbed cash of Rs.20,000/-,04 Cartoons of Chappals to the tune of Rs.80000/- and staircase was also put in the trolley of Tractor, dismantled the front of shop and slapped to the sons of applicant namely Vicky Kumar and Ravi Kumar. They also issued threats of murder to the applicant to withdraw the criminal complaint filed by him against Abdul Hakeem and others otherwise he will face worst consequences and then accused persons went away. Complainant thereafter approached the respondent No.9 for return of robbed article but he refused to do so. Then he moved an application to SSP Sukkur but of no avail. Hence, complainant/applicant finding no other alternate filed direct complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C before Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur for redressal of his grievance which was later on entrusted to learned Ist: Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur for disposal according to law who referred the same to learned IInd Judicial Magistrate, Rohri for Preliminary Enquiry who after recording statement of witnesses returned to learned Ist: Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur who vide order dated 06.10.2018 dismissed the direct complaint which is impugned before this court.

 

 

3.                Learned Counsel for applicant contended that applicant lead his evidence before learned trial Court but same was not appreciated while passing impugned order; that learned trial Court has passed order merely on surmises and conjectures without considering the material aspects of the case; that sufficient material was placed before the trial court for taking cognizance against the proposed accused but was not considered properly; that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is patently illegal hence, same is liable to be set aside. He prays that impugned order may set-aside and the trial court may direct to decide the complainant on merits.

 

4.                While controverting the above submissions, counsel for respondents and learned D.P.G supported the impugned order passed by the trial court; They submits that the applicant has not come with clean hands and filed instant Criminal Revision Application to drag the accused persons in false criminal litigation. Learned counsel further contended that before the trial court applicant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the charge against the accused. Lastly, they pray that the Revision Application may be dismissed.

 

5.                Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the material available on record with their able assistance.

 

6.       The record reflects that dispute starts from the removal of encroachment by the respondents by showing the applicant as an encroacher for which the applicant also approached this court. The applicant also filed a complaint against several persons including present respondents before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court Sukkur.

 

7.       A perusal of the averments of complaint and statements of both the witnesses reflect that there are series of material contradictions and they had narrated different facts and circumstances which are fatal to the allegations leveled by the complainant. The very purpose of holding preliminary inquiry is to thrash out the truth or falsehood of the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint without any intervention and participation of the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings. Issuance of notice to accused during the process of preliminary inquiry is stranger to the provisions of section 203, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the trial Court has rightly not issued notice/ summons to the respondents during the proceedings of preliminary inquiry and passing of dismissal order. Furthermore, trial Court after minute consideration of statement of complainant recorded on oath and statements of his witnesses has observed that no prima facie case was made out against the respondents. When there are no sufficient grounds for proceedings further, the trial Court was justified to dismiss the complaint.

                                                                                                                                                    

8.       Consequently, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has passed an appropriate order after considering all the relevant aspects of the complaint which is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, hence the same is maintained. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, instant criminal revision application stands dismissed being devoid of any legal substance.

 

9.       Above are the reasons for the short-order dated: 20-01-2020.

 

                  

                 

                  

                                                                                                      J U D G E