Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Pro. 4749 of 1968, decided on 17th June 1976.

‑‑ Ss. 439 & 561‑A‑Quashinent of proceedings‑--Proceedings against petitioner under S. 182, P. P. C. held in abeyance in view of petitioner's private complaint pending decision‑Accused in private complaint acquitted but Court declined to revive proceedings under S. 182, P. P. C. and discharged petitioner, holding his bona fide intention in making report to police‑Contention that case could not be remanded for further enquiry by Additional District Magistrate‑Repelled, in circumstances‑Order, held, suffered with no illegality and interference declined.

Aftab Farrukh for Petitioner.

Inayatullah Cheema for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th June 1976.

Muhammad Umar petitioner has come up, for the quashment of the proceedings pending against him under section 182, P. P. C. before a criminal Court at Lahore.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner reported an incident of murderous assault against three persons at Police Station Yakki Gate, Lahore. This case was cancelled and the petitioner was proceeded against under section 182, P. P. C. The petitioner then prosecuted the three accused through a private complainant which was decided on 31‑10‑6 resulting in the acquittal of the accused who were given the benefit of doubt. There after, Muhammad Aslam one of the acquitted accused of the 307 case made an application that the proceedings under section 182 against the petitioner which were held in abeyance for awaiting the decision of the aforesaid criminal complaint may now be taken up. This application was resisted by the petitioner and on 18‑6‑67, the trial Court observed that since the accused had filed a private complaint on the same allegations which be had made in his report to the police speak for his bona fide and with this observation the accused was discharged. In revision, the Additional District Magistrate directing further enquiry into the matter set this order aside.

3. I do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional District Magistrate could not remand the case for further inquiry. The fact remains that the trial Court did not proceed in the case under section 182, P. P. C. It discharged the petitioner only on the ground that he had filed a private complaint in support of his allegations made earlier before the police. This by itself was not enough. The trial Court should have proceeded to conclude the evidence in this case, however, learned State counsel brought to my notice that in fact the private complaint was filed to meet the charge under section 181, P. P. C. Be that as it may, since I do not find any legality in the order of remand, 1, therefore, do not consider it a fit case, for interference under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. This petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.