 |
| Criminal Revision in 249-A Cr.PC for acquittal of accused |
In the name of ALLAH, the most beneficent, the most
merciful
Format of
Criminal Revision in 249-A Cr.PC Application
BEFORE HONOURABLE SESSIONS JUDGE,
1.
_____________
2.
_____________
(both sons of ________)
3.
________Ali son of ________
All residents of ________________________
Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State
2.
_______________________
Respondents
CRIMINAL
REVISION AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22-05-2021 PASSED BY MUHAMMAD MUREED
ABBAS KHAN, LEARNED MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, RAWALPINDI, WHEREBY THE
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 249-A & 250 CR.PC FILED BY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ACQUITTAL &
COMPENSATION, WAS DISMISSED
PRAYER IN REVISION
To set-aside the
impugned order dated 22-05-2021 passed by Muhammad Mureed Abbas Khan, learned Magistrate
Section-30, Rawalpindi, and to accept the application under section 249-A
& 250 Cr.PC filed by the petitioners, consequently the petitioners may
kindly be acquitted from the charges in case FIR No 499/20 Dated
15-05-2020 Offence under sections 279, 337G & Subsequently added offences
under sections 354, 452, 147, 427, 149, 337FV PPC (offences under sections 452,
337FV were deleted later on) Police Station Saddar Beroni, Rawalpindi, and compensation
under section 250 Cr.PC may kindly be ordered to be paid to the petitioners, in
the interest of justice.
Respectfully Sheweth:
1.
Brief
facts, leading to file the instant Revision Petition are that petitioners filed
an application under section 249-A & 250 Cr.PC in case FIR No 499/20
Dated 15-05-2020 Offences under sections 279, 337G & Subsequently added offences under sections
354, 452, 147, 427, 149, 337FV PPC (offences under sections 452, 337FV PPC
were deleted later on) Police Station Saddar Beroni, Rawalpindi,
before Muhammad Mureed Abbas Khan,
learned Magistrate Section-30, Rawalpindi, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide
impugned order dated 22-05-2021.
2.
That
feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 22-05-2021, instant Criminal
Revision is being filed assailing the impugned order, on the following
grounds:-
GROUNDS
a.
That
under section 249-A Cr.PC, the accused person can be acquitted on either of the
grounds, firstly when the charge is groundless and secondly, when there is no
probability of accused being convicted. In the present case, the charges are
groundless as well as there is no probability of petitioners/ accused being
convicted due to multiple grounds, already taken by the petitioners in
detail not only in their application but also during the course of arguments,
but the learned trial court neither discussed nor gave its finding regarding
the grounds taken in the application, therefore, the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
b.
That if contents of FIR are admitted
to be true for some time, even then the offences under section 279, 337G
PPC are attracted only against the petitioner No.1/accused, but no statement of
any eye-witness is available on record who has seen the petitioner No.1 from his
own naked eyes driving the vehicle. Even, complainant himself is not the
eye-witnesses of the alleged accident. The complainant in FIR stated as under:-
____
It
means that the complainant did not see the petitioner No.1 while driving
the vehicle or hitting the alleged injured child rather, as per contents of
FIR, he came out of his house just after listening the weeping noise of his
child and not by witnessing the incident from his own naked eyes. So, no eye-witness to the accident.
In
fact, the vehicle was not being driven by petitioner No.1 rather it was a parked
vehicle near complainant’s house, and this vehicle was broken by the
complainant party due to the grudge that the vehicle was parked near
their house. (photos attached).
c.
That the alleged accident is stated
to have been occurred in front of the house of complainant party. Admittedly the
house of complainant is at the corner / turn of the street, and there
are many encroachments in the street, so it is impossible for any driver of a
vehicle to drive the vehicle rashly and speedily. (photo attached).
The
statement of complainant regarding running of vehicle over the leg or foot of
alleged injured child is unbelievable, because as per MLC No. 895/2020, the
Doctor Observed “Incomplete Fracture is seen in Right Fibula”. In
fact, a fibula fracture (a very Weak bone) can be caused due to a rolled
ankle as well as can also be caused due to an awkward landing. On the other
hand, if a Suzuki Carry Dabba with a Weight of 550 KG, run over the leg of any
person and that too of only 02 years, would not only cause fracture and that
too incomplete but also completely damage the leg. (Information taken from
internet is annexed)
d.
That the Learned Trial Court also
ignored the following 03 contradictory statements:-
e.
That the applicant/ accused had challenged
the impugned MLC No. 895/2020 before this Honourable Court, which was
allowed. During the proceedings, the complainant party deliberately did not
appear even for one time before the court despite of granting various
opportunities, as evident form the order of learned trial court dated
13-08-2020.
f.
That in the above said false FIR, 03
witnesses (1) Sajid (2) Masood (3) Mian Zamurd are mentioned by the
complainant but actually these are just rough names, because none of them came
forward to get record his statement under section 161 Cr.PC before
Investigating Officer. So, the prosecution has no independent witness,
on the statement of which, petitioners could be convicted, hence no possibility
of conviction.
g.
That in the FIR, the complainant,
leveled following allegations:-
But
no Medical evidence of any of the alleged victim women or kids is
available on record. Even the names of these alleged victims ladies are
also not mentioned in the FIR. Later on, after due deliberation and
consultation, the prosecution introduced 02 women (Uzma Bibi and Haseena
Begum), who were shown to have been victimized. As their names are not mentioned
in the FIR, therefore, their statement is of no importance. It is wroth
mentioning here that the complainant party is characterless persons, which was
the stance of petitioner/ accused from the very first day i.e 13-05-2020. Being
Characterless persons, the complainant even did not spare their women to
entangle the petitioners/ accused in the false FIR. This shows that the entire
story of prosecution is tainted with malice, which benefit must be extended to
the petitioners/ accused.
Furthermore,
if the petitioners/accused were at fault, they would have not called to 15
Police, but it was done by the petitioner No.1 by way of calling to 15
Police through Mobile No. 0332-5010632, as his vehicle was broken by the complainant
party.
The alleged Torn clothes have not been taken into
custody by the police till today.
h.
That
the petitioners in their application, specifically mentioned about (1)
Actual occurrence (2) Malafide of Complainant Party (3) Malafide
of Police (4) Contradictions in the Prosecution Story (5) Contradiction
in Ocular and Medical evidence (6) Delay in lodging of FIR (7) Miscellaneous
Grounds, but the learned trial court, totally ignored all these things and even
not mentioned any of the above said grounds, in the impugned order, therefore, the
learned trial court did not apply its Judicial mind and passed the impugned
order in a mechanically way, against the facts and law, therefore the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
i.
That
the Learned Trial Court, dismissed the application of petitioners, merely relying
on:-
i. Accused/petitioners were named in the FIR
ii. And found involved during the course of investigation.
The Zimni No. 4 dated 03-06-2020
is of very importance because the malafide of police can be adjudged from
this Zimni. The offences under section 354, 452, 147, 149 PPC which were added
vide this Zimni, were not based on any progress in investigation, evidence or
independent witness. In fact, the Investigating Officer malafidely added the
above said offences due to the grudge of Petition under Section 22-A, 22-B
Cr.PC filed by petitioner No. 1 just one day before i.e 02-06-2020. So,
after getting knowledge of petition 22-A, 22-B Cr.PC, the I.O tried to teach
the lesson to the petitioners/ accused.
It
is very important to narrate here that the complainant stated in FIR that it is
the case of accident but the Investigating Officer not only added offence under
section 279 & 337 G PPC (bailable) but also offence under section 337F(V)
PPC to make the offences non-bailable which was even not attracted to the
case of petitioner. Therefore, during proceedings of Pre Arrest bail petition of
petitioners, the offences under section 452, 337F(v) PPC were deleted under
the order of Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi vide dated
13-07-2020. So, if the complainant is/was at right, he should have challenged the
deletion of offences but the complainant has not done so. Hence the purpose of
lodging of FIR is very much clear that is to encounter the application dated 13-05-2020
filed by petitioner No.1 against complainant party, and to teach the lesson to
the petitioners/accused.
In
Challan/ Report under section 173 Cr.PC, the deletion of offences has been
mentioned in following manner, which also depicts the malafide of police:-
In
fact, the offences under section 452, 337FV PPC were not deleted by the
Investigating Officer himself rather same were deleted under the order of Honourable
Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi passed on 13-07-2020.
j.
That three applications For
(1) Inquiry (2) Change of Investigation (3) Legal Opinion were filed by
applicant/ accused before CPO & DSP (Legal), Rawalpindi, which were marked to concerned ASP, but the
staff of concerned ASP, had joined hands with the local police and did not
consider the statement of witnesses of the accused made before ASP nor
mentioned in the reports. All the 03 reports of police on the applications
stated above are totally same word by word, just application number and
date are changed. The learned ASP or his staff, even did not see the contents
of application and their purpose and straightaway, mentioned that this
application of “Change of Investigation”, disposed of the same. In fact, the
purposes and requests of all three applications were different, which shows
clear malafide on the part of police.
k.
That
the Learned Trial Court should have visualized whether the prosecution was based
upon bonafide or malafide, but the trial court in this instant case has not
done so.
l.
There
is no evidence with the prosecution against the accused persons, therefore,
there is no probability of conviction of accused on the basis of available
evidence and further trial of the case, would be a futile exercise. Section
249-A, Cr.P.C empowers the Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the
proceedings even before framing of the charge if there is no possibility
of conviction of accused for the alleged offence. However, it is incumbent upon
the Magistrate to afford opportunity to the prosecutor as well as accused
persons to argue the merits of case on the basis of material available with the
prosecution and recording of prosecution evidence is not a mandatory
condition while passing the acquittal order under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
The wisdom and scheme provided under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. is to save an
innocent person from lengthy trial for the charges which are groundless
and ultimately accused will be acquitted. 2017 P Cr.LJ 219
m.
That
the law prevents from dragging the innocent persons in false, frivolous
and vexatious cases but in the case in hand, petitioners have already undergone
ordeal and rigorous of the proceedings for more than one year, without
committing the offences, just due to the act of complainant by way of
registration of above said baseless FIR.
n.
That no specific role whatsoever
has been attributed to the petitioners rather general role just to spread the wider
net.
o.
That many witnesses of the
petitioner/ accused from vicinity have also sworn their affidavits before the Investigating
Officer about innocence of petitioners/ accused and about actual facts but the
Investigation Officer did not give any weight to these statements.
p.
That under all the above said facts,
circumstances, grounds, it is very much clear that the FIR was based on wrong
allegations, the purpose of which was to
encounter the application dated 13-05-2020, filed by petitioner against
complainant party, and also to entangle the petitioners in false case. So, due to
these acts of complainant, the petitioners suffered huge mental agony, loss of
reputation, monetary loss. Their time was also wasted, therefore, for lodging of
false, frivolous and vexatious FIR, the petitioners/ accused are also entitled for compensation section 250
Cr.PC, for which show cause notice should be given to the complainant.
PRAYER:
In
these circumstances it is humbly prayed that the instant Criminal Revision may
kindly be accepted, impugned order dated 22-05-2021 passed
by Muhammad Mureed Abbas Khan, learned Magistrate Section-30, Rawalpindi may
graciously be set-aside, and the application under section 249-A
& 250 Cr.PC filed by the petitioners may kindly be accepted, consequently
the petitioners may kindly be acquitted from the charges in case FIR No 499/20
Dated 15-05-2020 Offence under sections 279, 337G & Subsequently added
offences under sections 354, 452, 147, 427, 149, 337FV PPC (offences under
sections 452, 337FV were deleted later on) Police Station Saddar Beroni,
Rawalpindi, and compensation under section 250 Cr.PC may kindly be
ordered to be paid, to the petitioners/ accused, in the interest of
justice.
Any other relief, which this Honourable Court may deem
fit may also be awarded to the
petitioners.
Petitioners
/ Accused
Through
Counsel
CERTIFICATE
As per instructions received, it is
certified that this is the first Criminal Revision on the subject matter
being moved before this honourable court.
Counsel
BEFORE HONOURABLE SESSIONS JUDGE,
_____________ Versus The State
etc.
CRIMINAL
REVISION AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22-05-2021 PASSED BY MUHAMMAD MUREED
ABBAS KHAN, LEARNED MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, RAWALPINDI, WHEREBY THE
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 249-A & 250 CR.PC FILED BY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ACQUITTAL & COMPENSATION,
WAS DISMISSED
INDEX
|
Sr. No. |
Description of documents |
Annexure |
Page Nos. |
|
1. |
Criminal Revision |
|
01-11 |
|
2. |
Attested copy of impugned ordered dated
|
|
12-22 |
|
3. |
Copy of False FIR No. 499/ 20
|
|
23 |
|
4 |
Copy of application dated |
|
24-26 |
|
5 |
Copy of petition U/S 22-A Cr.PC with order dated |
|
27-29 |
|
6. |
Copies of 03 Applications filed by applicant/ accused to CPO & DSP, for (1) Inquiry (2) Change of Investigation (3) Legal
Opinion, along with Reports of ASP,
and SMS record |
|
30-37 |
|
7. |
Copy of MLC No. 895/2020 |
|
38 |
|
8. |
Copy of Photo, pointing out Tibia and
Fibula along with detail about causes of fibula fracture, taken from Internet
|
|
39-42 |
|
9. |
Copy of application challenging the
MLC No. 895/20, along with order dated |
|
43-45 |
|
10. |
Copy of Photo, showing that the House
of complainant is situated at corner
/ turn of street. |
|
46 |
|
11. |
Copy of bail granting order dated |
|
47-48 |
|
12. |
Copies of 03 Affidavits sworn in
favour of petitioners/ accused |
|
49-54 |
|
13 |
Wakalat Nama |
|
55 |
Petitioners / Accused
Through
Counsel