[Sections 4 And 200 To 203]
Hearsay evidence: Complainant not appearing as a witness. He did not see the occurrence nor he was present at the place of occurrence. Occurrence was narrated to him by one Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Siddiq also did not appear as a witness. Held, complainant not admissible in evidence being hearsay. PLD 1964 Kar. 428 relied upon. PLJ 1996 S.C. (AJK) 67, Muhammad Ramzan.
Complaint for cheating must be made by person cheated any other person has no locus standi to make complaint. (DB) PLD 1960 Dac. 528. Surender Nath. Contra. PLD 1963 Dac. 357 Jagdish Chander v. Joy Narain. Surender Nath's case not approved.
A Magistrate is competent to make a complaint as a common informer. AIR 1933 Lah. 884. Mehr Singh v. Emp.
A telegram can amount to a complaint in a view of the fact that the definition of a complaint includes an allegation made in writing and does not itself necessitate the presence of the complaint. AIR 1936 Pesh. 66 Hidayat Ullah v. Emperor.
Complaint does not require statement of fact beyond allegation that some person has committed an offence. PLD 1953 BJ 72 Ghulam Muhammad v. Ghulam Muhammad Khan.
The essence of the complaint is the statement of facts relied upon as constituting the offence. It is sufficient that the complainant shall state the true facts in his own language, and it is for the magistrate to apply law to those facts. (DB) ILR 9 Lah. 678 Crown v. Balmukand etc. (DB) Iftikhar Ali v. Javid Dastigir Mirza etc. PLD 1975 Lah. 126.
Mere mention of sections of offences in complaint without disclosing justifiable applicability would not be determinative of jurisdiction of Court. Proceedings prior to issue of process to the accused do not amount to taking cognizance of the case 968 P.Cr.LJ 730 (Lah.) Gulab Khan v. Fazal Hussain.
Stating Sections of Penal Code in complaint is not necessary but it must contain a statement of the facts constituting the offence. 6 Lah. 375 Mst. Naurati v. Crown. AIR 1944 Nag 192 Prov. Government v. Gompaji. PLD 1959 Lah. 185; PLD 1964 Lah. 369 Muzaffar Ahmad v. Rehmat Bibi.
Complaint of defamation based on evidence in Court, Complaint by Court or its sanction is not necessary. Complaint by the defamed in maintainable under Penal Code. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ (Mad.) 441 Naliappa v. Chiman Mal.
Personal presentation of complaint to the Magistrate is not necessary. Sending a complaint by post is competent 30 Cr.LJ 732 Chuhermal 42 Cal. 19 Abhoyeswari v. Kishori.
Taking action under the Code. The complainant must be made to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Cr.P.C. A petition alleging that an offence has been committed but the petitioner does not desire to prosecute the wrong doer is not a complaint. 6 CWN 926 Bhaman v. Hanuman 36 All. 222 Haider Raja 26 Mad. 640 Rayat Kuti. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 361 Ali Muhammad v. Bagh Ali.
Limitation. No limitation is provided in criminal law for lodging a complaint 10 All. 350 Q.E. v. Ajudhia Singh. However, unless the delay is explained it raises suspicion as to its truthfulness. (See delay in FIR) PLJ 1973 Kar. 279 Khatija.
Delay in filing complaint is not by itself fatal except under very special circumstances. PLD 1976 Kar. 853 G.M. Nizam-ud-Din v. Irshad Hussain Khan etc.
Delay in filing complaint u/S. 200 Cr.P.C. Although no limitation for filing criminal complaint is prescribed, but longer a complaint is delayed lesser becomes chance of believing in its truth, more particularly when it is entirely based on oral evidence. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1371, Aarub Khan v. Haris M.B. Ahmed etc.
Mode of examination. On presentation of a complaint the Magistrate shall examine the complainant on oath at once, and reduce it into writing, and it should be distinct from the complaint itself. Mere calling upon the complainant to attest the complaint is not sufficient compliance with the section 18 All. 221 Kesri v. Muhammad Bakhsh.
Admitting contents of complaint to be correct on solemn affirmation by the complainant, it cannot be said that it is an examination of the complainant either on oath or otherwise. 49 Cr.L 554 (Mad.) Aiyar v. Nathan. Contra 9 All. 666 Murphy. 26 Cr.LJ 1101 (Sindh) Muhammad v. Muhammad.
Signature of complainant. If the complaint is in writing it must be signed by the complainant otherwise it cannot be accepted 42 Cal. 19 Abhoyeswari v. Kishori.
Examination of complainant. The examination of the complainant is not a mere formality, and when a Magistrate dismisses a complaint without making the examination under section 200 the order of dismissal is illegal and must be set aside. AIR 1932 Mad. 443 Ramaswami, 12 Bom. 161 Jankidas.
Complainant not examined under section 200, Cr.P.C. and complainant sent to police for investigation and report. On adverse report by the police complainant dismissed. Case remanded by High Court to magistrate as Sec. 200, Cr.P.C. was not complied with. PLJ 1990 Cr.C (Kar.) 485 Habib Ullah.
Complainant not examined before sending case under section 202 for inquiry to subordinate magistrate. Held, irregularity cured under section 537, Cr.P.C. as no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 188. Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Abdullah etc.
Process issued without recording complainant's statement is violative of section 200, Cr.P.C. Such process quashed in petition u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. NLR 1990 Cr. 290. Iftikhar Ali Hashmi v. Qaisar Ali Khan.
No investigation can be ordered under section 202 without examining the complainant. 27 Cal. 921 Mahadeo; 12 Cr.LJ 539 Ali Muhammad.
No complaint before Magistrate. Complainant written out by a public servant and sent to the police for investigation and for sending up accused for trial, instead of being filed before a Court, held, only "very technical". The accused however, acquitted on the g round that no offence under section 420 committed. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 297 Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan.
Not a complaint. An application under section 107, Cr.P.C. AIR 1931 All. 53 Muhammad Yousaf. An application under section 552, Cr.P.C. setting a woman at liberty; 37 Cr.LJ 857 Dalpat Rai v. Emperor, are not complaints (SC) PLD 1962 SC 331 Ghulam Qadir v. Mistry Fazal Din.
Complaint need not be in writing is clear from the wording of sections 200 and 201. 1 Rang. 549 J.R. Das.
Court-Fee. No Court-fee is chargeable for a complaint of cognizable offences. See Court-Fees Act VII of 1870. A complaint by a Public Servant is not chargeable with any Court-fee. Section 19 CI. XVII of Act VII of 1870.
Joint complaint. There is no legal objection to a joint complaint. the Magistrate should examine both the complainants. AIR 1942 Oudh 407 Karim v. Nangoo.
Person complained against not accused. Until it has been decided to issue process against him a person complained against does not become an accused person, and is not entitled to be represented by a counsel at the preliminary inquiry. 28 Cal. 880 Golap Jan v. Bhola Nath. 37 CWN 709 Fanindar v. Rahat Ali PLD 1960 Lah. 247 Rehmat Khan (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 570 Abdul Haleem v. Qurban Hussain.
Presence of accused at inquiry. A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to require the presence of the accused at an inquiry or investigation under section 202, into complaint. (FB) 49 mad. 918 Appa Rao v. Janakimmal. PLD 1964 Kar. 316. The accused has no right to be heard at the stage when the complaint is under consideration. 49 Cr.LJ 599 Radha Kishan v. Misra. The accused ought not, if he is present to be allowed to ask questions at the inquiry. 49 CWN 282 Muhammad Amin v. Jogindra. Magistrate cannot record the statement of person proceeded against on his request PLD 1965 Lah. 570. Abdul Haleem v. Qurban Hussain.
Accused cannot take part in inquiry u/S. 202, Cr.P.C. He can attend the proceedings but cannot interfere. PLJ 1988 FSC 41. Mst. Fatima Bibi v. Muhammad Jameel.
Calling the accused at inquiry. It is incongruous to call on a person accused of an offence to show cause against the issue of process to him when proceedings under section 202 are in contemplation. However, unless miscarriage of justice is caused High Court will not interfere in revision. 29 Cr.LJ 39 (Lah.) Moti Lal v. Emperor 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1526 (Kar.) Allah Yar. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1105 (Kar.) Wahid Bakhsh Shah. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 547 Allah Bandi 1970 P.Cr.LJ56 Khadim Hussain.
Production of entire evidence in preliminary inquiry is not necessary 1980 SCMR 843 Qadar Dad v. Sher Muhammad.
Failure to produce evidence written or oral in support of allegations in complaint, accused discharged by the magistrate. No ground to interfere with the order of discharge. 1968 SCMR 382 1968 P.Cr.LJ 766 K.M. Yousaf-ud-Din v. Siffat Hussain.
Failure to reduce in to writing substance of examination of complainant under section 200 is a mere irregularity curable section 537. PLD 1969 Pesh. 156 Muhammad Sharif v. Mir Wali Jan.
Omission to examine complaint mere irregularity. Omission to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process to the accused is a mere irregularity and does not invalidate the conviction when no prejudice to the accused has been caused by such omission. (FB) 30 Cr. LJ 1956 Bharat v. Judishti, 4 Lah. 359 Chiragh Din. AIR 1935 All. 883 Ravisaran. AIR 1938 Bom. 50 Desai Bhai. 39 Cr.LJ 840 Tara Singh v. Emperor 25 Cr.LJ 730 Ambayara v. Panchamutdhu. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 1768 Shamim. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 547 Allah Bandi. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 842 M.A. Aleen (SC) 1971 SCMR 227. Muhammad Ehsan.
Statement not recorded before inquiry. The omission of Magistrate to record statement of complainant on oath before he sends the complaint for inquiry under section 202 (1) is an illegality and not mere irregularity curable under Sec. 537, Cr.P.C. 43 Cr.LJ 803 (Pesh.) Jit Singh v. Ayub Khan.
Complaint by Public Servant under section 182, PPC. Complaint written out and sent on to Police for investigation and for sending up accused for trial instead of being filed before a Magistrate. Objection that there was no "regular complaint" before Court, held, only "Very technical". (SC) PLD 1962 SC 397, Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan.
Not formal complaint under section 195, Cr.P.C. for offence under section 182, PPC. Held proceedings wholly unsustainable and quashed. PLD 1976 Lah. 213 Khurshid Alam PLJ 1976 Lah. 264.
Complaint under section 182, PPC. Magistrate himself reluctant but lodging complaint on the advice of District Magistrate. Held, complaint not invalid. PLD 1957 Lah. 747 Ghulam Qadir Khan.
No process can be issued against the accused unless and until the magistrate has examined the complaint 42 Cal. 19 Abahoyeswari v. Kishori 49 Cr.LJ 635. Subodh v. Jamser. PLD 1963 Kar. 15 Kar. 15 Saffar v. Qadar, PLD 1964 Kar. 225 Mir Muhammad Khan.
Issue of process on Complainant's statement. Ordinarily Magistrate is to accept complaint's statement on oath. The Magistrate should record reason for postponing the issue of summons. Failure to do so is curable. PLD 1959 Lah. 186 Anwar Mahmood v. Rashid-uz-Zaman.
Before issue of process trial magistrate is duty bound to make inquiry to elicit all facts before issuing summon to accused. 1968 P.Cr.LJ. 755 M.B. Zaman v. Muhammad Sarwar.
Complaint to Magistrate for offence u/S. 302, PPC. Magistrate is not to conduct preliminary inquiry u/S. 202, Cr.P.C. but to send up the case to Sessions Judge. Persons summoned by the Sessions Judge on the basis of the Magisterial inquiry for offence u/S. 302 PPC, held without authority. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Lah.) 316. Abdul Wadood v. Aman Ullah.
After local inquiry directed. When Magistrate directs a local inquiry, he cannot issue process before the receives the report of the inquiry. AIR 1925 Cal. 989 Krishna Bala v. Nirodabala.
After issue of process a Magistrate cannot exercise his option of holding inquiry. He must proceed with the trial 13 Cr.LJ 749 Gaji v. Jamanshah. Similarly, it is illegal to order preliminary inquiry after the accused has been brought before the Court under a warrant 21 Weekly Reporter (Cal. Cr.) 44 Ramkant v. Jadub.
After issue of process reference to police is contravention of section 202. Irregularity is not curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. PLD 1967 Pesh. 184.
Police not to inquire. Where positive allegations of collusion of Police with respondent are made inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. should not be entrusted to police. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 556. Wali Muhammad.
Complaint against a Police Officer. If the complaint is made against a Police Officer, it is improper for the Magistrate to call for a report from the Police Officer who is himself the accused person. 1884 AWN 47 Jalal-ud-Din v. Muhammad Khalil. 21 Cr.LJ 461 Mewa Lal. Or from another Police Officer. PLD 1973 Note 11 p. 19, Subhan v. Ghaus Bakhsh.
Police report. Making indiscriminate use of Police agency to ascertain matter is undesirable. Complainant cannot be dismissed merely on basis of a report without examining complainant on oath 1969 P.Cr.LJ 692. Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Mansur Ali. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 371.
One preliminary inquiry. Section 202 contemplates only one preliminary inquiry. Directing a second inquiry in presence of one already made is not warranted by law. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 556. Wali Muhammad.
Magistrate to wait for the result of inquiry or Investigation. He cannot dismiss the complaint without it. PLD 1959 Lah. 660 Fateh Sher v. Khan Yasin Khan 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1043 (Kar.) Sultano v. Aliman.
Magistrate not to look on report under section 174 or 176, Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint. PLD 1959 Lah. 660 Fateh Sher.
Inquiry or investigation. A magistrate can either inquire into the case himself or can direct an investigation. He cannot do both, if he does so, it is illegal. 14, All. 550 Duraga Prasad. 18 Cr. LJ 765 Madho v. Rashid. Contra PLD 1975 Kar. 190 Stage v. Muhammad Usman, PLD 1969 Kar. 381 distinguished.
Inquiry u/S. 202 Cr.P.C. for offences u/S. 364/34 can be ordered to be made by a Civil Judge as well as Magistrate. Expression "such other person" used in section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Includes a Civil Judge as well. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Lah.) 446. Abdul Ghafoor v. Ghulam Hussain etc.
Police investigation in petty cases. In petty cases of assault and the like, the police ought not to be directed to make inquiries, because in petty matters the police are under a strong temptation of making money out of the complaint. In such matters the proper course for the Magistrate is to take action at once upon the complaint. 1894 PR 19, Ganesha. These authorities are, however, not based on any statute, but on general ground of police, the statute still remains and under that statute it is not illegal to send such a complaint for inquiry or investigation by a Police Officer. AIR 1940 Lah. 208. Kaniya Ram v. Chanan Mal.
Police report not binding. The magistrate should exercise his own independent judgment when be receives the report of investigation or inquiry that he had ordered, and he does not exercise his independent Judgment when merely accepts without giving reasons, the opinion of the Police Prosecutor. It is not for the Magistrate to surrender his discretion or his Judgment to that of the Police Prosecutor. 40 Cr.LJ 807 Jeoomal v. Emp. 12 Cr.LJ 331 Ahmed v. Ameena.
Referring to Police. It is not a proper course for a magistrate when a complaint is made to him of an offence of which he can take cognizance to refer the complaint to a Police Officer instead of examining him. Such a course would foster abuses and defeat the purpose of law, which is to given the person injured an accused to justice independent of the Police. 12 Bom. 161 Jankidas v. Emp.
Magistrate can call for report only from the police. He cannot direct the police to put up challan after the investigation. the powers of the police are independent and are not controlled by the Magistrate. (The can arrest the accused and send a challan to the Court independent of the Magistrate's order of inquiry and report), AIR 1932 Lah. 539 and AIR 1931 mad. 770 referred. PLD 1950 B.J. 75 Muhammad Shafi v. Crown. But when the police did not send a report to the Magistrate but put a challan and the Magistrate ignoring the provisions of Section 203 and 204 proceeded with the challan the proceedings were quashed as illegal. PLD 1951 BJ 53 Muhammad Shafi v. Crown, 1968 P.Cr.LJ 997 Mahmood v. Ghulam Muhammad Khan.
Ordering police to investigate and register case. Magistrate examining complainant under section 200 and recording evidence of his witnesses under 202 cannot direct police to investigate and register case but should proceed with the trial himself. PLD 1962 Lah. 570 Abdul Haleem v. Qurban Hussain. (SC) PLD 1878 SC 228 Muhammad Ramzan.
Registration of case. In a complaint case the Magistrate can direct the police to register and investigate a case. PLD 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 363; PLD 1975 Lah. 577, Raja Munawar Khan etc. v. Muhammad Ishaq etc. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 370 Muneer Ahmad. (SC) PLD 1978 SC 8 Muhammad Ramzan.
Ordering investigation under section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. A Magistrate after examining complainant under section 200 cannot order investigation under section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. PLD 1960 Dac. 631 Aziz--ur-Rehman. PLD 1959 Kar. 381; PLD 1960 Dac. 1054.
Recording reasons. The Magistrate is bound to record his reasons before directing a local investigation. 14 Cal. 141 Baidyanath v. Muspratt. 14 Cr.LJ 403 Ram Parshad v. Moti. 18 Cr.LJ 765 Madho v. Rashid. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 371 Muhammad Aslam v. Hashmat Ali.
Recording of reasons. If a Magistrate refers a case to the Police without recording reasons and then on receiving the report from the Police dismissed the complaint under section 203, the order of dismissal must be set aside. 21 C.W.N. 127 Balai Lal v. Pasupati.
Reasons for dismissal to be recorded. If that is not done it would be impossible for the High Court to consider whether the discretion vested in the magistrate under section 203 had been properly exercised. Failure to record reasons is not a mere irregularity. 40 Cal. 41 Munir-ud-Din v. Abdul 26 Cr.LJ 1502 Kedar Ram v. Ram Bharosa.
Rehearing a complaint. A dismissal under section 203 is a dismissal without a trial, the magistrate, therefore, can rehear a complaint which he has dismissed under section 203 though the order of dismissal has not been set aside by a higher Court. Neither section 369 nor section 403 operates as a bar to such procedure. (FB) 29 Mad. 126 Chinna Kaliappa. 31 Cr.LJ 1180 Allah Ditta v. Karam Bakash. 40 Cal. 71 Idoo.
Fresh complaint. When a magistrate dismisses a complaint, he can entertain a fresh complaint on the same facts because there is no difference between entertaining a fresh complaint and rehearing the original complain. (FB) 29 Mad. 126 Chinna Kaliappa. 9 All. 85 Puran. (FB) 40 Cr. LJ 745 (Sindh) Habai v. Raya Premji. Fresh compliant on same facts can be heard for a distinct offence. PLD 1959 Lah. 1018 Walayat Bibi v. Sardaran. PLD 1968 Dac. 698 Jabed Ali 1968. P.Cr.LJ 730 Ghulam Khan.
Third complaint on same facts. The facts that the accused has been harassed already by two similar complaints both of which had been dismissed or the accused was discharged is ample ground for quashing a third complaint on the same facts. AIR 1942 Lah. 122. Faqir Chand v. Kishori Lal.
Dismissal of complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. does not bar second complaint on same facts. 43 Cr.LJ 611 (Pesh.) Abdul Ghani Khan v. Rokhan Shah.
Magistrate cancelling case on police report, filing of fresh private complaint not barred. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 680 (Lah.) Abdulla v. Khan Muhammad PLD 1975 Lah. 373, Bshir Ahmad v. Bashir Ahmad etc.
Police Challan and complaint. The existence of Police challan is no bar to the institution of a complaint in the same Court about the same incident but with a different version and different, accused. PLD 1975 Lah. 775. Lah. Din PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 257.
Complaint case and FIR case with different versions. Two witnesses examined in complaint case who were accused in the FIR case, held no objection can be taken to their examination as witnesses. PLJ 1998 SC 835 Muhammad Dildar Malik v. Tahir Mahmood etc.
Complaint not to be dismissed without giving an opportunity to the complainant to substantiate the charge by evidence, 30 Cr.LJ 407 Mahim v. Watson 26 Cr.LJ 561 Purrosattam v. Ram Das. PLD 1959 Lah. 660 Fateh Sher v. Khan Yasin Khan.
Dismissal of complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. does not require deep appreciation as required at the time of final Judgment. PLD 1976 Kar. 653 G.M. Nizami-ud-Din v. Irshad Hussain Khan etc.
Recording of evidence. It is not necessary for the Magistrate himself to record the statement of the complainant or preliminary evidence in a complaint before issuing process or dismissing complaint. Provisions of Section 356, Cr.P.C. do not apply. PLD 1958 B.J. 1 Iqbal Hussain v. Irshad Hussain PLD 1959 Lah. 186 Anwar Mahmood v. Rashid-uz-Zaman.
Sessions Judge can only order holding of further inquiry and not summoning of all the accused when a Magistrate had summoned some accused and discharged the rest under section 203, Cr.P.C. PLD 1966 B.J. 6. Altaf Hussain Shah.
When a complaint is dismissed u/Ss. 203/204 Cr.P.C. the complainant is to approach the Sessions Court u/S. 436 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Court may direct the Magistrate make further inquiry. The Sessions Court could not summon the accused to stand trial u/S. 439-A Cr.P.C. PLJ 1996 Lah. 684, Muhammad Khan etc.
Successor of a Judge can make a complainant regarding an offence committed before his predecessor. PLJ 1976 Pesh. 66 Gul Rauf etc. v. Alaptagin etc.
Stay of proceedings by Magistrate pending challan case against complainant is illegal. The Magistrate should either dismiss the complaint or issue process. PLD 1950 B.J. 66. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Akbar Khan.
Appreciation of evidence at preliminary inquiry with the yard stick of trial Court is not the purpose under section 202. Only a prima facie case is to be made out. Full dress rehearsal of a trial is not desirable. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 692 Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Mansur Ali.
Exemption from appearance in Court granted to complainant under section 561-A Cr.P.C. because of his illness. PLD 1963 Lah. 430 Muhammad Ismail v. S. Akbar Hussain Shah.
Complainant under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance for polygamy is to be lodged by the Union Council concerned and not its Chairman. Proceedings quashed 1972 P.Cr.LJ 73 Muhammad Sahfi v. Chairman. Union Committee, Lahore. (Now law has been changed. It is aggrieved party now. Punjab Government Notification NO. SOX-L15/75 Vol. III dated 26.11.76.
Second wife has right to file complaint against husband when the marriage is performed without the permission of Arbitration Council under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. PLJ 1991 SC 445. Fahim-ud-Din v. Sabeeha Begum etc.
In cognizable case acquittal of accused for absence of complainant is illegal. High Court allowed appeal u/S. 417 (e) by special leave remanded the case for retrial. NLR 1985 Cr. 443, Karim Dad v. Sher-ur-Rehman.
Death of complainant. As there is no abatement of a criminal case on the death of the complainant, a fresh complaint on the same facts need not to be made but the old complaint must be treated as pending and proceeded with to its disposal. 16 Cr. LJ 713 (Mad.) Ramasamier.
Summoning of the accused without further inquiry by the Magistrate in a complaint case is competent after remand of the case by the Sessions Judge, u/Ss. 435/436, Cr.P.C. 1991 SCMR 2157 Fazal Karim v. Muhammad Boota etc.
Further inquiry. Direction for further inquiry under section 436. Magistrate competent to issue process without further evidence or fresh inquiry, on reconsideration of materials already on record. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 598 Muhammad Mian.
Judicial Order. Order of discharge or Police report is a judicial Order. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 538 Chinta Haran Barua.
Review of Orders. A Magistrate summoned accused after recording complainant's statement. Case transferred to another Magistrate, who recorded preliminary evidence and discharged accused observing that the order of predecessor Magistrate was wrong. Held, successor Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review order of his predecessor. Order set aside as illegal. 1974 P.Cr.LJ Note 83 P. Zafar Ali Mirza.
Recording no reasons under-section 202 does not make resulting orders or proceedings bad in law unless miscarriage of justice is caused. PLD 1974 Kar. 248 Muhammad Ismail v. Lal Muhammad.
All the accused not summoned who were named, in complaint is not enough to hold that the case against the summoned accused is false. PLR 1974 Lah. 118; PLD 1974 Lah. 202 Manzoor Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain.
Deeper appreciation of evidence in complaint for issuing summons is not required. Magistrate in petition u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. directed to proceed with the case. PLJ 1989 Cr.C (Lah.) 1. Muhammad Afsar v. Muhammad Sadiq.
Appreciation of evidence to consider interestedness of witnesses produced for preliminary evidence is competent. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 491 1975 P.Cr.LJ 255 Muhammad Soofan.
Delay of one month is making complaint explained by the fact that the petitioner tried to get the case registered by the police. Held, delay not fatal to the case. PLJ 1982 Cr.C.(Kar.) 333 Sajan Dass.
Complaint by unauthorised person, Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner instead of Deputy Commissioner, under Martial Law Regulation 64, Held, whole edifice built upon such a complaint falls to the grounds. Conviction set aside. Also held, no bar for Land Commissioner to file fresh complaint. PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 29. Shaukat Hussain Khan.
When complaint is withdrawn u/S. 248 Cr.P.C. and the accused are acquitted, no new complaint can be filed, nor accused can be retired in view of bar contained in Sec. 403(1) Cr.P.C. 1993 Cr.C. (Lah.) 16, Mazar Hussain.
4 years delay in making complaint for offence u/S. 436/34 PPC. Delay fatal for prosecution; appellants acquitted. (DB) NLR 1994 306, Muzammal Iftikhar etc.
Complaint filed after dismissal of FIR case. FIR lodged u/S. 447/34 PPC was dismissed. Complaint filed a private complaint. Held, Sec. 403 Cr.P.C. does not apply in such a case. Remedy u/S. 200 Cr.P.C. is totally independent of what has happened to the police case lodged through FIR PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 84, Sher Yar v. Bacha and others.