Find a Lawyer

Criminal Review Petition No. 7‑R of 1978 and Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 341 of 1976, decided on 4th November 1978.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

----Art. 188‑Review‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed on ground of private complaint having been filed after a delay of more than a year and a half and F. I. R. lodged in respect of same, occurrence found false by a Magistrate‑Application for review of order of dismissal of petition for leave to appeal merely an attempt to reargue previous submissions, no ground, held, made out for review.‑

M. S. Khawaja v. The State P L D 1965 S C 287 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others P L D 1967 S C 317 distinguished.

Syed Abdus Salam, Advocate and Khawaja M. Tufail, Advocate and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 4th November 1978.

‑This review application has been filed against this Court's order of 1‑2‑1978 dismissing the petition for leave which the 'petitioner had filed against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑6‑1976. The facts in the case are that the petitioner had lodged an F. I. R. on 22‑4‑1973 against the second respondent and many other persons for trespass into his Bungalow. According to the High Court's order, the investigations of the case showed that it was false, and, therefore, it "was cancelled by the learned Magistrate on 3‑10‑1973". After waiting for more than a year and a half, the petitioner filed a private complaint only against respondents 1 and 2 under section 148 and section 452/448/149, P. P. C. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under section 561‑A Cr. P. C. in the Lahore High Court for the quashment of the belated charges filed against them, This application was allowed by a learned Judge of the High Court on 18‑6‑1976 on two grounds. The first ground was that the dispute between the parties was an old dispute, which had been decided against the petitioner in a judgment pronounced by a civil Court against him. The second ground on which the application of the respondents was allowed was the obvious ground of the gross delay by the petitioner in filing his private complaint. However, aggrieved by this order the petitioner had filed a petition for leave against it.

One of the petitioner's grievances in this petition for leave was that the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court had misread the judgment of the civil Court on the basis of which he had reached the conclusion that the civil Court had decided the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents against the petitioner. There was force in this submission, therefore, we had pointed out in our order dismissing the petition for leave that this submission was correct. We had then observed

"Be this as it may, this was not the only ground on which the complaint was quashed. The other ground was delay. Learned counsel admitted that the F. I. R. against the first two respondents had been lodged on 22‑4‑1973 but the case was found to be false and was cancelled, by the learned Magistrate on 3‑10‑1973. The petitioner then filed a private complaint on 22‑4‑1975. This was after a delay of more than a year and a half. In view of this gross delay in instituting his complaint, no exception can be taken to the view in the impugned order."

With these observations, we had dismissed the petition for leave. The only ground on which this review petition is pressed is that our order is inconsistent with this Court's judgment in M. S. Khawaja V The State (PLD1965SC287) and this Court's judgment in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others (PLD1967SC317). The judgment in Khawaja's case is not relevant, because this Court had refused to grant leave against the order of the High Court refusing to quash proceeding under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C, against the petitioner. Likewise the judgment in Ghulam Muhammad's case is also distinguishable on the facts. In the first place, the charges there were of a very grave nature. Secondly, unlike that case, the question here is of the, petitioner s gross delay in filing a private complaint after the dismissal of the prosecution against the respondent. On this and other ground, this judgment too is of no relevance to the instant case.

We have to state with regret that the application does not make out any ground whatever for a review and is merely an attempt to re-argue, the submissions, which were pressed before us on 1‑2‑1978. The petition is, therefore, 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.