Muhammad Usman Ali Khan Vs The State etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr. Misc. Quashment Petition No.38-D/2025 with Cr. Misc. Petition No. 39-D/2025

Muhammad Usman Ali Khan Versus The State etc

For petitioner: Mr. Gul Tiaz Khan Marwat Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Inamullah Khan Kundi, Assistant Advocate General for State:

Muhammad Kamran Baloch Advocate for respondent No.2

Date of hearing 29.06.2026

JUDGMENT

SADIQ ALI, J.- Through this petition under Section 561- A Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I.Khan, whereby, the learned trial court dismissed the petitioner’s private complaint at the preliminary stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and simultaneously initiated show-cause proceedings for the payment of compensation

under Section 250 Cr.P.C. on the ground of vexatious litigation.

2.Arguments heard and record perused with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

3.The legal anatomy of the case reveals that the petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent No.2 alleging offenses under Sections 500 PPC and other provisions. The learned trial court, after examining the preliminary contents, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for want of maintainability without summoning the respondents/accused. While doing so, the learned trial court also invoked Section 250 Cr.P.C. to penalize the petitioner for filing a supposedly false and frivolous complaint.

4.First, addressing the issue of the applicability of Section 250 Cr.P.C. a bare reading of the statutory provision reveals that a Magistrate can only direct the payment of compensation to an accused if the case is discharged or acquitted, and the Magistrate is satisfied that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious.

The operational words of Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. explicitly presuppose that the accused has been summoned, has

faced the process of court, and has subsequently been acquitted or discharged.

5.In the instant case, the respondents/accused were never summoned to face trial. The complaint was choked at its inception and dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Since no trial took place, no order of acquittal or discharge of the respondents was ever passed by the trial court.

Therefore, the foundational jurisdictional facts required to trigger Section 250 Cr.P.C. were completely unavailable.

Reliance in this regard may place on the case of “Bhagwan Singh vs Harmukh And Anr.” reported as ‘1907 ILR 29 Allahabad 137’ wherein it was held:

The applicant filed a complaint in Court charging Harmukh and Baldeo with an offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, without issuing process for the attendance of the persons complained against, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and under Section 250 ordered the complainant to pay Rs.50 compensation to each of the persons complained against. In my opinion the order is not justified by the terms of Section 250, inasmuch as there was neither an order discharging nor an order acquitting the accused. I may add that the reasons given by the Magistrate for holding the complaint to be false are not to my mind at all convincing. I set aside the order of the

Magistrate directing Bhagwan Singh to pay compensation. Any amount paid under that order must be refunded to him.

6.Hence, the order of trial court to the extent of initiating compensation proceedings under Section 250 Cr.P.C. is, on the face of it, illegal, lacking jurisdiction, and inherently perverse. To prevent the abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court invokes its inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to strike down this portion of the order.

Consequently, the impugned order to this extent is hereby set aside.

7.Now, turning to the second limb of the impugned order, which pertains to the outright dismissal of the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that an order of dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is a judicial order that is fully revisable. When an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy though a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge is explicitly provided by the code, this Court is generally circumspect in bypassing that hierarchy under the garb of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. unless extraordinary circumstances dictate otherwise.

Consequently, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the

proper legal forum to challenge the dismissal of his complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. if so advised but subject to all legal exceptions.

8.For the reasons discussed above, this petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Announced.

(*M/Subhan) Sd/-

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Ali