2026 P Cr. L J 597

 2026 P Cr. L J 597

[Lahore]

Before Farooq Haider, J

IHSAN-UL-HAQ---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 38316-M of 2023, decided on 3rd October, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 561-A, 200, 202 & 204---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i),

392, 506(ii) & 109---Causing shajjah-i-khafifah, robbery, criminal

intimidation, abetment---Private complaint---Summoning of accused

in private complaint to face trial---Scope---In a private complaint,

accused were summoned by Magistrate to face trial---

Accused/respondents challenged the vires of said order by filing

revision petition, which was allowed by the Revisional Court---

Validity---During trial of the case, accused persons would have every

opportunity for cross-examining the complainant and other

witnesses, bringing their oral as well as documentary version on the

record and to falsify the allegations mentioned in the complaint;

they would also have opportunity to produce evidence in their

defence as well as appear themselves as their own witness under

S.340(2), Cr.P.C. for disproving the allegations levelled against them--

-In the light of cursory statements of witnessesincluding the

complainant as well as documents produced by the complainant

including Medico-Legal Examination Report, Trial Court rightly

came to the conclusion that sufficient material was available on the

record to proceed with the trial against the accused persons and

they were rightly summoned to face the trial---However, said

important and vital aspect was not considered by lower Revisional

Court at the time of passing impugned order dated 11.10.2019---

Therefore, impugned order dated 11.10.2019 passed by lower

Revisional Court in the revision petition was not in accordance with

law, thus was set-aside---Accused persons/now arrayed as

respondents No.2 to 6 in this petition, respectively would appear

before Trial Court in the light of order dated 22.02.2019 passed by

Magistrate/Trial Court in the complaint for further proceedings in

accordance with law---Petition was accepted, accordingly.

Muhammad Rajar v. The State through Prosecutor General Sindh

and others PLD 2025 SC 40 ref.

Sarwar and others v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1762 rel. Muhammad Safdar Shaheen Gill for Petitioner.

Haroon Rasheed, Deputy Prosecutor General for the

State/Respondent No. 1 along with Shahid S.I.

Ch. Imran Arshad Naro for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

ORDER

FAROOQ HAIDER, J.---Through this petition filed under Section:

561-A Cr.P.C., Ihsan ul Haq (petitioner/complainant) has challenged the

vires of order dated: 11.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pasrur whereby revision petition filed by Nadeem Ashraf, etc.

(accused persons/now arrayed as respondents Nos.2 to 6 in this

petition) against the order dated: 22.02.2019 passed by learned

Magistrate Ist Class, Pasrur {regarding summoning of aforementioned

accused persons in the complaint filed by present petitioner (titled as

Ihsan ul Haq v. Nadeem Ashraf, etc.)}, has been accepted and

aforementioned summoning order dated: 22.02.2019 has been set-

aside.

2. Brief however necessary facts for decision of instant petition are

that Ihsan ul Haq (present petitioner) filed complaint in the Court of

learned Area Magistrate, Pasur against Nadeem Ashraf, Naeem Ashraf,

Azeem Ashraf, Safia Bibi and Ghulam Mustafa under Sections: 337-A(i),

392, 506-ii, 109 P.P.C (copy of the complaint is available at Page Nos.9-

10 of this petition), cursory statement of Ihsan ul Haq (complainant)

was recorded as Witness No.1, cursory statement of Nisar Ahmad was

recorded as Witness No.2, cursory statement of Usama Dilawar was

recorded as PW-3 and original receipt regarding application for

registration of case was produced before the Court as P-3; learned

Magistrate Ist Class, Pasrur after finding sufficient material as well as

allegations to proceed with the complaint against the respondents,

summoned them through notice vide order dated: 22.02.2019, copy of

said order is available at Page No.19 of this petition and relevant

portion of the same is hereby reproduced as under: -

Today instant private complaint was fixed for arguments.

Arguments heard, record perused.

Perusal of record reveals that the complainant namely Ehsan Ul Haq

has filed instant private complaint against the

respondents/accused persons namely Nadeem Ashraf, Naeem

Ashraf, Azeem Ashraf, Safia Bibi, Muhammad Ashraf and

Ghulam Mustafa with the averments that the accused persons

have made assault upon the complainant party and caused

severe injury to the complainant, committed theft of Rs. 5000/ and also threatened for dire consequences. Corroboration to his

version he has produced following cursory witness.

1 Ehsan ul Haq

2. Nisar Ahmad

3. Usama Dilawar.

Sufficient material as well as allegations to proceed with this

complaint is ilable against the respondents. Let the respondents

be summoned through notices for 22.04.2019.

Subsequently, Nadeem Ashraf, Naeem Ashraf, Azeem Ashraf, Safia

Bibi, Ghulam Mustafa (accused persons/respondents Nos.2 to 6 in this

petition) filed revision petition before learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Pasrur against aforementioned order dated: 22.02.2019 passed by

learned Magistrate Ist Class, Pasrur (copy of said revision petition is

available at Page Nos.21-22 of this petition), which was accepted and

order dated: 22.02.2019 (mentioned above) was set-aside vide order

dated: 11.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasur,

which order has been impugned herein through instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order

dated: 11.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur

is against the law and facts of the case and requests for setting-aside

the same while accepting this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 6

submits that impugned order has been passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pasrur while keeping in view peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, hence, instant petition is liable to be

dismissed because respondents Nos.2 to 6 were summoned against the

law as well as facts of the case. He has referred case law reported as

Muhammad Rajar v. The State through Prosecutor General Sindh and

others (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 40).

5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting this petition

submits that order dated: 22.02.2019 regarding summoning of accused

persons/respondents Nos.2 to 6 was rightly passed by learned

Magistrate Ist Class, Pasrur while finding sufficient material available

on the record to proceed with the trial in the complaint, therefore,

impugned order dated: 11.10.2019 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pasrur is not in accordance with law rather liable to be

set-aside.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy

Prosecutor General and going through the available record with their

able assistance, it has been noticed that Ihsan ul Haq (present petitioner) filed complaint (as detailed above), during recording his

cursory statement, copy of his Medicolegal Examination Certificate

was produced as P-1, cursory statements of the witnesses were

recorded and after finding sufficient material available, persons

complained against (now arrayed as respondents No.2 to 6) were

summoned as accused for facing trial in the complaint.

It is relevant to mention here that for issuance of process for the

purpose of summoning the accused in the complaint, law only requires

availability of sufficient ground as provided under Section: 204 Cr.P.C.

and not the reasonable ground . Term sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused person in complaint mentioned in Section: 204

Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with term reasonable ground for believing

against the accused that he has been guilty of the offence within the

contemplation of Section: 497 (1) Cr.P.C. and in this regard, guidance

has been sought from case of Sarwar and others v. The State and

others (2014 SCMR 1762). Prima facie case , does not mean a case

proved beyond shadow of doubt but a case which can be established if

evidence led in support of the same is believed.

At the time of summoning the accused, material available on record

is not assessed in depth i.e. its relevance is seen and not the

admissibility or evidentiary value, which was to be established at

regular trial. In simple words, there is marked distinction as to the

approach regarding appraisal of material on record i.e. averments

made in the complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses

recorded during preliminary inquiry for determining as to whether

process to be issued against the accused or not in the complaint and at

the regular hearing/trial of criminal case leading to determination of

the guilt or innocence of the accused. So, when Court is satisfied with

the material placed before it in the shape of complaint, documents

annexed with complaint and statements of complainant and witnesses,

then process can be issued for summoning the accused for facing trial.

Furthermore, if allegation levelled in the complaint fulfills

definition of the offence , material available in the form of statements

of complainant recorded under Section: 200 Cr.P.C. as well as of

witnesses recorded under Section: 202 Cr.P.C. and/or documents

supports said allegation, which is sufficient for framing of the charge

and proceeding with the trial, then it is called as sufficient ground for

summoning the accused in the complaint. It is also relevant to mention

here that veracity of contents of the complaint as well as evidentiary

value of the statements of witnesses to be produced during the trial, is

to be seen during trial of the case when complainant as well as

witnesses will face acid test of cross-examination Needless to add that during trial of the case, accused persons would

have every opportunity for cross-examining the complainant and

other witnesses, bringing their oral as well as documentary version on

the record and to falsify the allegations mentioned in the complaint,

they would have also opportunity to produce evidence in their defence

as well as themselves appear as their own witness under Section:

340(2) Cr.P.C. for disproving the allegations levelled against them. Case

law referred by learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 6 is having

its own facts which are not identical to the facts of the case in hand;

even otherwise, every criminal case has its own facts and

circumstances. Hence, in the light of cursory statements of witnesses

including the complainant as well as documents produced by the

complainant including Medicolegal Examination report, trial court

rightly came to the conclusion that sufficient material is available on

the record to proceed with the trial against the accused persons and

they were rightly summoned to face the trial. However, said important

and vital aspect was not considered by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pasrur at the time of passing impugned order dated: 11.10.2019.

Therefore, impugned order dated: 11.10.2019 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur in the revision petition is not in

accordance with law, thus set-aside. Instant petition is accordingly

accepted. Nadeem Ashraf, Naeem Ashraf, Azeem Ashraf, Safia Bibi and

Ghulam Murtaza (accused persons/now arrayed as respondents Nos.2

to 6 in this petition, respectively) will appear before trial court in the

light of order dated: 22.02.2019 passed by learned Magistrate Ist Class,

Pasur/trial court in the complaint for further proceeding in

accordance with law on the date to be fixed by trial court after receipt

of attested copy of this order.

JK/I-17/L Petition allowed.