*:: 2011 YLR 979 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHAIRAT HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA
S. 265-K---Power of the court to acquit accused, exercise of-Power of court to acquit accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., could be exercised at any stage, however, it could be in those cases where after hearing both sides, the court satisfied; that there was no possibility of accused being convicted of any offence.
-----------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 PCrLJ 1340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Sh. NAVEEDUR REHMAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 406---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A & 265-K--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Criminal breach of trust---Constitutional petition--Quashing of F.I.R.---Disputed question of facts could not be gone into by High Court while exercising its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction---If an offence had, prima facie, been committed, the same should be inquired into and tried by Trial Court---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court was not an alternative or additional jurisdiction---Accused had more than one alternative remedies before the Trial Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e., under Ss. 249-A, Cr.P.C. & 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition seeking quashing of F.I.R., therefore, was not competent---Quashing of F.I.R. in the case would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, which was not permissible under the law---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 MLD 1644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FARHAT ABBAS SHAH
Side Opponent : KHUDA BAKHSH
S.3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Illegal dispossession---Acquittal of accused/petitioners during trial, refusal of---Petitioners allegedly had purchased a plot of land in the year 1989 possession of which was delivered to them and they had been using the same as cattle-shed for the last twenty years---Respondent filed a private complaint against petitioners for illegally dispossessing him from the said plot---Additional District Judge, on receiving report from police and Tehsildar, summoned the petitioners to face trial---Petitioners filed application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and contended that they had purchased the disputed plot and were owner of the same on the basis of the judgment and decree whereby an arbitration award had been made rule of the court--Validity---Reports submitted by police and revenue officials in Trial Court were vague and sketchy and, therefore, of no help to ascertain whether the plot claimed with specific description by the complainant/respondent existed in the said locality---Resolution of the controversy by demarcation of plot in view of description of said plot involved practical difficulties as neither the accused nor the complainant got recorded documents pertaining to their claimed plots in revenue record---Plea of the accused for acquittal before recording of evidence could not be entertained until the controversy regarding ownership of the disputed plot had been resolved by Trial Court after ascertaining the truth of allegations levelled by the complainant---Impugned order, therefore, did not call for any interference---Petition was dismissed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 PLD 394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SAMI UL HAQ KHILJI
Side Opponent : ALI RAZA RIZVI
Ss. 3, 5 & Preamble---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-K, 435 & 561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Illegal dispossession---Scope---Dispute among co-sharers---Civil dispute---Land grabbers-Proof-Report of Station House Officer---Complainant alleged that accused had illegally dispossessed him from property in question---Accused filed application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground that no offence had been committed by him, which application was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Report of Station House Officer contained documentary evidence stating that accused was occupying portion of property in question lawfully against payment of consideration---When dispute was amongst co-owners, provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not applicable---Preamble of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, provided that it was specific to the act of property grabbers---Though complainant claimed that accused persons were land grabbers but failed to give any specific instance of their involvement in such activities and also had not placed on record any documentary evidence in support of his such claim---Matter was a private dispute between the parties and both the parties were co-sharers in the property which was not exclusively owned by complainant who was owning a very small share as compared to other co-owners---Claim of accused was that complainant had received a sum of Rs.25,00,000 through cheques and also in cash which was almost equivalent to the value of his share in property in dispute and his name was yet to be incorporated as co-owner in record held by various government departments---Dispute which was civil in nature was converted into criminal offence by complainant with mala fide intention in order to pressurize accused for grabbing further amount in spite of the fact that complainant had already received a reasonable amount from accused party---High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction accepted application under 5.265-K, Cr.P.C. filed by accused and acquitted him of the charge---High Court quashed proceedings pending before Trial Court in connection with private complaint filed by complainant under S.3 illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Revision was allowed accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 YLR 2448 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GUL KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 265-K & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 392---Qatl-e-amd and robbery---Quashing of proceedings---Appreciation of evidence---Bail, grant of---One prosecution witness recognized the accused and three other co-accused during identification Parade---During proceedings of trial, complainant filed application under section 345, Cr.P.C. which could not make any progress as the offence was not compoundable---Accused filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by Trial Court---Accused then filed petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by High Court with direction to complete the trial within eight weeks---Prosecution, however, failed to proceed its case expeditiously---Accused filed another application for acquittal which was dismissed--- Eye-witnesses categorically stated in their testimonies that they could not recognize the accused and that the accused persons facing the trial were not the persons who had killed the deceased---Remaining two eye-witnesses had migrated to USA for good---Fate of the case, thus, hinged on the testimony of said two witnesses who were needed to be examined by prosecution though the witnesses had left the country, yet their availability was not an impossibility so the Trial Court did not commit an error in dismissing the accused's application for acquittal---Agony of the accused, languishing in jail, however, could not be brushed aside as he was not responsible for delay in trial but as crucial evidence of prosecution had yet to be recorded, nothing certain could be predicted about conclusion of trial---Accused could not be allowed to rot in jail indefinitely---Application for quashment of proceeding was, thus, converted into bail petition and accused was admitted to bail.
--------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 YLR 2096 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL SABOOR
Side Opponent : State
S. 365-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 265-K --Abduction---Petition for quashing of F.I.R. and proceedings---Contention of counsel for the petitioner was that he had contracted marriage with alleged abductee and that challan had been submitted in the competent court of law---Petitioners, in circumstances should have moved the Trial Court for their acquittal under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court was directed by High Court that if any petition in that respect was moved, same would be disposed of within specified period in accordance with law.
--------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 YLR 2383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RAHAT BASHIR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE
S. 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Complaint---Not maintainable---Plea of---Effect---Plaintiff filed suit against defendant regarding disputed property while the defendant filed complaint under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in respect of the same property---Plaintiff also filed an application under S.265-K, Cr. P. C. for acquittal---Trial Court dismissed the said application---Plaintiff asserted that the dispute between parties should have been resolved by the civil court and the complaint under S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was not maintainable---Validity---Trial Court had summoned the plaintiff/accused in the complaint after considering the evidence on record---Dispute between the parties should have been decided on merits after recording of evidence--- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being a special law, High Court declined to circumvent the process of special law promulgated for a particular purpose---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2010 YLR 695 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TASAWAR
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 265-K & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337-J---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)---Causing hurt by means of poison and offence of Zina-bil-Jabr---Petition against dismissal of application of acquittal---Petitioners had assailed the order passed by the Trial Court through which application for their acquittal under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was dismissed---Initial charge levelled by the complainant of giving rice mixed with intoxicants was falsified through report of Chemical Examiner as no intoxicant was detected in the material sent to the Chemical Examiner for report---Later on through supplementary statement, allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr falling under S.10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was levelled against the petitioners---Out of three alleged victims of Zina two had refused to get medically examined stated that no one had committed Zina with them---Third, one who in her statement, ;under S.161, Cr.P.C. had implicated one of accused persons for commission of Zina with her, but through report of DNA test, said allegation of Zina was also falsified---DNA of accused did not match with DNA of person who allegedly had committed Zina---In the present case, prosecution had no evidence against the petitioners and charge against the petitioners was groundless---Continuation of trial in the case would be abuse of process of law on the basis of available material and there was no chance of conviction of the petitioners--Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and application filed by the petitioners under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioners were acquitted from the charge.
-----------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 PLD 269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, MULTAN
---S.5---Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R.15(1)(a)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.173 & 265-K---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Inquiry conducted against accused/petitioners by Anti-Corruption Establishment---Order for submission of challan before Court of competent jurisdiction---Accused/petitioners/public servants were booked under S.409, P.P.C. read with S.5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Anti-Corruption Establishment on application of authorities alleging therein that the former had misappropriated certain amounts by awarding fake leases in favour of their own clerks and prayed for recovery of misappropriated amounts, from them (petitioners)---Petitioners contended that three officers of Anti-Corruption Establishment who conducted investigation recommended for dropping of inquiry against them but Additional Director Anti-Corruption directed the concerned quarter to prepare challan and submit the same in Court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioners contended that under Rule 15(1)(a) of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, on completion of investigation, if allegations were not established, the case was to be dropped and that order of Additional Director Anti-Corruption was illegal and unlawful---Validity---Additional Director Anti-Corruption had ultimate authority to accept reports of his subordinates or to do otherwise and on the basis of material he came to conclusion that recommendation of dropping of case was not justified and keeping in view the evidence on record he approved judicial action---Rule 15(1)(a) of Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985 was not mandatory as no consequence had been provided for non-compliance of said Rule---Statute, as a general rule, was understood to be directory when it contained matter merely of direction but not when those directions were followed up by express provision that in default of following them, the facts were to be null and void---Disobedience of Act, if it was directory, did not entail any invalidity---Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 being not an Act of Legislature and having been made by Executive Authorities could not override parent law under which police was hound to submit challan under S.173, Cr.P.C, whatever result of investigation might be, the relevant Court would be authorized to agree or differ with the said report---Additional Director was under no circumstances bound to drop inquiry in any situation and it was in his discretion to decide the basis of evidence to drop proceedings or not---Additional Director had, vide his order, only given direction to submit challan and after its submission petitioners would be having remedy of filing application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---No occasion, at such a stage, was there to interfere with order of Additional Director Anti-Corruption---Constitutional petitions were dismissed.
------------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 YLR 209 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIANWALI
---Ss.3 & 4--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199---Constitutional petition---Order dismissing application filed by petitioner under S.265-K, Cr. P. C., had been assailed---Respondent had leased out land in question through lease deed, where-under possession of land was delivered to petitioner---Tentatively, petitioner had no lawful right to repossess land or dispossess complainant/respondent under garb of injunctive order---Scan of record and impugned order had revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest, without committing any error of law/fact---Additional Sessions Judge, had rightly referred to report requisitioned by him from S.H.O. concerned, according to which dispossession of complainant/respondent at the lands of petitioner and his companions did take place---No case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, in circumstances was made out---Even otherwise, a lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, could not be substituted on constitutional petition---Petition being devoid of any merit, was dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 PCRLJ 169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHEHZAD KARIM
Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION LOHARI GATE, LAHORE
----S. 561-A & 265-K---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.123-A, 124-A, 147, 148 & 188---West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S.16---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Disputed questions of fact---Jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner/accused vide constitutional petition sought the quashment of case registered against him under Ss.123-A, 124-A, 147, 148 & 188, P.P.C., S.16, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Petitioner contended; that F.I.R. registered against him was false and frivolous; that offence under S.124-A, P.P.C. was a non-cognizable offence which could not be investigated without prior permission of Magistrate and that offences under S.7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and S.16, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 were not attracted to the case of petitioner---Validity---Petitioner was nominated in F.I.R. and serious allegation had been levelled against him which he denied; thus, controversy essentially related to disputed questions of fact which were not to be adjudicated upon by High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction---High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction Was not to resolve disputed questions of fact and ordinary course of trial by the Court was not to be deflected---Petitioner had already filed two applications before Trial Court, one under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and another under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking transfer of case to regular Court, which were pending adjudication before the Court---Prayer made by petitioner for quashment of F.I.R. had become redundant---Petition was dismissed.
-----------------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 PLD 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
--- S. 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-K & 190---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Dismissal of complaint and acquittal---Petitioner in application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. had sought dismissal of main complaint and his acquittal on the grounds that Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; that complaint having been received in violation of S.193(2), Cr.P.C., could not proceed; and that Additional Sessions Judge was not delegated with the. jurisdiction under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Said application of petitioner having been 'dismissed, petitioner had filed constitutional petition---Provincial Government in consultation with High Court, in terms of Ss.7 & 8 of Cr.P.C., had already declared the relevant Tehsil as Sessions Division, which would be deemed to be the Court of Session, competent to try complaint filed by respondent under S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Contention that Additional Sessions Judge, was not `Court', was repelled, in circumstances---Contention that complaint was entertained by Additional Sessions Judge in violation of S.193(2), Cr.P.C., was also not sustainable for the reason that provisions of Cr.P.C. were not strictly applicable to proceedings under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and Court constituted under the said Act, being Special Court was not bound to follow the procedure as laid down in S.190, Cr.P.C.---Ground that Additional Sessions Judge was not delegated jurisdiction under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had no legal force because a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was to be filed and tried by the Court of Session---Tehsil in question having been notified as Sessions Division, Additional Sessions Judge working at said Tehsil was also `Court of Session'---Complaint, in circumstances was rightly filed, entertained and heard---Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, neither suffered from any illegality, nor irregularity or jurisdictional defect.
------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 YLR 3082 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : OBIAQWU EZEKEKE
Side Opponent : State
----S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K--- Appreciation of evidence---No narcotic substance had been 'recovered from the possession of accused persons and no word had been uttered by any of the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr. P. C. aqua accused's involvement in the alleged offence---Only piece of .evidence being relied upon by the prosecution against accused was in the shape of d statement allegedly made by a co-accused during his custody with the Investigating Agency---Said co-accused had allegedly not only confessed his own guilt, but had also implicated the accused---Confession of accused before an Investigating Officer at n time when he was in custody of such an officer, was inadmissible in evidence---lf such a statement of co-accused was inadmissible in evidence to his own extent, then its evidentiary value was next to nothing vis-a-vis accused persons---Investigating Officer present in the court had 'stated in so many words that apart from the confessional statement of said co-accused made during his custody, no other material was available on the record so as to connect accused with alleged, offence---Evidence available on record showed that there was hardly any occasion for prosecuting the accused and there was no probability of conviction of accused persons---Application submitted by accused before the Trill Court under S.265-K, Cr. P. C. was accepted and accused were acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2007 YLR 3027 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AHSAN SABIR
Side Opponent : State
---Ss.561-A & 265-K---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Quashing of proceedings---Occurrence had taken place after dark in the month of February and culprits committing alleged murder remained unidentified at the spot---Both accused had not been nominated in the F.I.R.---Names of accused persons surfaced in the case for the first time through an application submitted by mother of deceased before Investigating Officer wherein she had alleged that mother of accused had made extra judicial confession before her regarding involvement of accused in the murder in issue--Application submitted by mother of deceased before Investigating Officer indicated no date or time of making of extra judicial confession by mother of accused---Even the individual roles allegedly played by the accused persons or the details of occurrence had not been mentioned in said extra judicial confession---No other piece of evidence was available on the record tending to incriminate accused in the alleged murder---Accused had been found to be innocent during investigation---Extra judicial confession was a very weak type of evidence and it seldom would suffice all by itself for recording a conviction in the absence of any other piece of evidence---Weakness of .alleged extra judicial confession in the case, was compounded by the fact that same had not been made by accused persons in the circumstances, there was hardly any likelihood or possibility of recording of conviction of accused by the Trial Court---Petition for quashing of proceedings was allowed and application filed by accused before the Trial Court under S.265-K, Cr. P. C. was accepted and accused- were acquitted, in circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PCRLJ 1790 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. KALSOOM BIBI
Side Opponent : S.H.O. POLICE STATION JAMPUR through D.P.O., Rajanpur
---Ss. 561-A, 265-K & 249-A---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.7 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Petitioners were booked under Ss.7 & it of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---Petitioners sought quashment of proceedings against them on grounds; that F.I.R. was lodged against petitioners and other co-accused a year after alleged abduction; that female petitioner was sui juris who contracted marriage out of her own free-will; that petitioners were living as husband and wife, having a suckling baby; that nobody could be permitted to interfere in their matrimonial life---Validity---Delay in registration of F.I.R. in such-like case where family honour was involved, was of no consequence, for the people, before approaching police, exhaust all other sources---Investigation of case was complete and challan had been submitted in Court of competent jurisdiction where petitioners might seek alternate remedy---High Court could quash proceedings if it were satisfied from cogent material that prosecution was launched for improper motive to harass accused or its continuance would be abuse of process of law---In presence of alternate remedy under Ss.265-K and 249-A, Cr.P.C., the remedy for quashing the proceedings could not be availed---Quashing of proceedings at early stage was neither permissible nor preferable and every criminal case was to be allowed to proceed on its own merits---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
--------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 MLD 1884 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ANEES AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 561-A, 265-K, 435 & 439---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979); Ss.17, 18 & 22--Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6---Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance (LIX of 2002), Ss.3 & 4---Accused had called in question order passed by Special Judge, whereby application for his acquittal filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was dismissed---Two prosecution witnesses in their statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. had fully implicated the accused, but they took a totally divergent stand in their statements recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate at a belated stage---Since the trial had already commenced, making any observations on the pleas advanced by counsel for accused would not be appropriate as said pleas related to merits of the case and it could not be said that no case was made out against the accused---Credibility of prosecution's star witnesses against accused, would be determined only by the Trial Court---Necessity of getting their statements recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate would also be ascertained during the course of trial---Any interference at present stage by High Court in exercise of its powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. would tantamount to pre-empting the functions of the Trial Court---Prosecution at that stage in case of such a serious nature, could not be deprived of its right to prove its case against petitioner---No merits having been found in the petition, same was dismissed by High Court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PCRLJ 207 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFI RAZA
Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION THINGI, DISTRICT VEHARI
---Ss. 561-A, 265-K & 249-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Remedy for quashing of proceedings is not available when alternate remedy under Ss.265-K & 249-A, Cr.P.C. is available.
---------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 YLR 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Dr. EMMANUEL ONUWABUCHI KEKE
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 9(c) & 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Appreciation of evidence---Accused had not been arrested at the spot and no narcotic substance had been recovered from his possession during investigation of the case---F.I.R. itself showed that raiding party had not identified or named accused on its own and accused had been implicated in case on the basis of alleged disclosure made by arrested co¬ accused---Trial Court, while admitting accused to post-arrest bail, itself had observed in its order that accused stood implicated on the statement of co-accused which was inadmissible in evidence---F.I.R. showed that members of raiding party could identify the fleeing culprit, but no test identification parade had been held in the case so as to positively incriminate the accused---Case against accused was based on no legally admissible evidence at all---No probability existed for conviction of accused---Provision of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. was meant, to save a person from rigors of a trial, but the Trial Court had not kept that object of the provisions before it while dismissing application of accused submitted in that regard---Continued harassment of accused through a trial which was not likely to end in accused's conviction, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court which could not be allowed to be perpetuated---Impugned order was set aside and application by accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was accepted and accused was acquitted in the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PCRLJ 263 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Messrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
Side Opponent : TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.
----Ss. 561-A, 249-A & 265-K---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of proceedings---High Court has inherent jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. in exceptional cases even to quash the proceedings without awaiting the order of Trial Court passed under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.
---------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 YLR 2686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Sadar SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN
Side Opponent : HABIBULLAH AAMIR
---Ss. 3, 4, 5 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 190, 193, 265-K & 439---Quashing of proceedings---Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was a special law and procedure was also provided therein---Provisions of Criminal. Procedure Code, 1898 however, would apply to proceedings under said Act, wherever required---Contention of petitioner that Sessions Judge could only try complaint under S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, if it was routed through a Magistrate following the provisions of Ss.190(2) and 193, Cr. P. C., was not tenable---Any complaint which disclosed contravention of S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was triable by the Court of Session as it was clearly provided in S.4 of the Act---Section 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had further clarified the provisions as it required that upon a complaint, the Court could direct the officer-in-charge of the Police Station to investigate and complete investigation and forward same within 15 days to the Court---If a person had a grievance as mentioned in S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, Sessions Court was competent to entertain and try complaint, the Court could take cognizance itself as mentioned in S.4 of said Act or entrust same to Additional Sessions Judge---Court would generally follow procedure provided in Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, however, provisions of Cr.P.C. would be applicable during proceedings, but subject to provisions of the said Act---Complaint filed under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 did not require to be routed through a Magistrate under Ss. 190(2) & 193, Cr. P. C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PCRLJ 1551 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FIDA HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JAMPUR, DISTRICT RAJANPUR
---Ss. 190 & 265-K---Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.365-A, 337-A(i), 506(ii), 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to Anti-Terrorism Court---Complaint in the case was directly filed by complainant against accused/petitioner before Magistrate in terms of S.190, Cr.P.C. as a private complaint in ordinary case---Special Court was competent to entertain private complaint directly and issue process to accused after holding preliminary inquiry in the case---Adoption of process in terms of S.190, Cr.P.C., filing of complaint before Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by Court of Session and then sending same by Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial, was not mandatory requirement for filing private complaint before Special Court---Even filing of complaint before Magistrate, in the present case was neither legal nor its sending to the Court of Session was legal requirement---All proceedings conducted by Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in complaint containing allegation of abduction for ransom, in circumstances, was an exercise in futility---Such procedural defect, however, was neither fatal nor on basis of said defect, petitioner/accused could be acquitted in terms of S.265-K, Cr.P.C. as claimed by accused--Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge sending case to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial, was neither without lawful authority nor suffered from any jurisdictional defect---Anti-Terrorism Court in terms of S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could refuse to try complaint and transfer same for trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction, if after recording evidence, Anti-Terrorism Court was of the opinion that offence was not a Scheduled offence.
------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PLD 717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAFAR IQBAL
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
----S. 105---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss.3 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.24-A, 265-K & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Non-appealable interlocutory order cannot be allowed to be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Respondent filed a petition .under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 qua the property regarding which a civil suit was admittedly pending before civil Court---Additional Sessions Judge, in violation of procedure prescribed by section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, neither inquired into the matter by an Officer Incharge of Police Station nor issued summons instead he directly issued warrants of arrest against petitioner---Validity---Statutes excluding a right of appeal from an interim order could not be by-passed by bringing under attack such interim orders in constitutional jurisdiction---Only remedy available to petitioner in criminal proceedings was to move an application under S.24-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case may be and no criminal proceedings could be allowed to be challenged through Constitutional petition or by moving application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Perusal of record revealed that petitioner never appeared before Trial Court or made any application under S.24-A or 265-A, Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition was therefore, not maintainable.
------------------------------------------------------------
*:: 2006 PCRLJ 347 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADDAR, DISTRICT KHANEWAL
--S. 379---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-K & 249-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Case against accused had been registered on 5-9-2005, but investigation had not been completed till 27-10-2005 and same was still at early stage of hearing---No interference was warranted unless Court was satisfied from cogent material that prosecution was launched for improper motive to harass accused or its continuance would be an abuse of process of law---Remedy was not to be used to divert ordinary course of criminal procedure---Remedy for quashing of proceedings was not available when alternate remedy was available in shape of Ss.265-K & 249-A, Cr.P.C.---Quashing of proceedings at early stage was neither permissible nor preferable and every criminal case should be allowed to proceed on its merits---High Court could not assume the role of investigator.
0 Comments