Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 253/Q of 1975, decided on 28th May 1976.
------S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Delay‑Mala fides‑Pro secution not solely responsible for inordinate delay in disposal of case‑Evidence showing malice of complainant in bringing false criminal charges against petitioners yet to be adduced before trial Court‑Quashment of proceedings refused, in circumstances.
Muhammad Sarwar Awan for Petitioners.
Zafar Pasha Chaudhury for the Complainant.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th May 1976.
This petition for quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in a Magistrates Court at Lahore under section 380/448, P. P C. was admitted by me on the ground that there was no progress in the case although more than two years bad elapsed since its registration.
A perusal of the record has, however, disclosed that the delay in the disposal of the case did not occur entirely on account of the prosecution's fault. Several adjournments were necessitated by the absence of one or another of the accused persons and some by the absence on leave or transfer of Presiding Officer. In my opinion, therefore, it is not proper in this case to quash the proceedings merely on the ground of delay. There is, however, no other ground on which the proceedings in question can justifiably be quashed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the pending civil litigation between the parties was clear proof of malice on the part of the complainant, which motivated him to bring the false criminal charges against the petitioners. But the background of the case is a circumstance, which it is for the trial Court to take into consideration in the light of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is not possible for this Court to hold the petitioners innocent merely on the basis of the alleged malice.
The learned counsel also sought to prove his clients' innocence by relying upon a certain receipt allegedly issued by the complainant. But the receipt is also a piece of evidence, which should be produced before the trial Court in the first place.
In short there is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dis missed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer