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 Petition No. 566 of 1980, decided on 25th November, 1980.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
---S. 561‑A ‑Quashment of criminal proceedings‑Authority of Court to proceed with case challenged‑Application for quashment of proceedings not proper remedy‑Applicant, held, to raise such objection before trial Court‑Trial Court, in circumstances, held further, to take up such objection as to jurisdiction in first instance, dispose it of by a speaking order and to proceed with case only after coming to conclusion of having jurisdiction to proceed with matter on merits Application for quashment of proceedings rejected as premature.
A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980.
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J
.‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 4‑10‑1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before Mr. Muhammad Yaqub, Magistrate First Class with section 30 Powers, Lahore was rejected as premature.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has contended that the learned Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to summon the petitioner and that the view of the learned Single Judge that the petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings was premature was not justified because the very authority of the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner was challenged.
3. We do not think that the learned Judge in the High Court had com mitted any error of law in holding that the objection whether the learned Magistrate did have the jurisdiction or not to proceed with the matter was an issue that could be raised before him and that he should determine it in the first instance i.e. therefore, the petition for quashment was premature. We would like to observe that the learned Magistrate shall take up the objection regarding his jurisdiction in the first instance and dispose it of by a speaking order at the outset of the proceedings and it is only after he has come to the conclusion that he indeed has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on merits, that he may continue the proceedings.
4. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer