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 Revision No. 55 of 1981, decided on 30th March, 1982.
‑‑Ss. 110, 112 & 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Police report showing general and vague allegations against petitioner‑Sheets attached therewith indicating 4 cases pending against petitioner under Hudood Ordinance but nothing to show as to what happened with these cases‑Complaint under S. 110, held, found prematurely filed proceedings against petitioner being abuse of process of Court, quashed, in circumstances.‑[Abuse of process of Court].
1980 P Cr. L J 953 fol.
1978 P Cr. L J 1.61 and P L D 1981 Kar. 60 ref.
Muhammad Sayedain for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 30th March, 1982.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the police report which is at page 17 of the above petition is not only vague and of a general nature, but in the said report neither any witnesses are cited nor list of any cases in which the applicant has been convicted and/or challaned have been given. In spite of this, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of this report and passed an order under section 112, Cr. P. C., without holding any inquiry. In view of this, learned counsel submitted, that initiating of proceedings against the present applicant amounts to abuse of the process of the trial Court and further said proceedings cannot legally be maintained. In support of this, learned counsel has relied on cases reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 953, 1978 P Cr. L J 1.61 and 269 and P L D 1981. Kar. 60.
2. This matter has been called twice since morning, but no body on behalf of the State has come forward to appear in this matter and as such I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. I have gone through the police report which is at page 17 ands I Bad that in the said report general and vague allegations are made against the applicant. However, 1 find that in the sheet attached with the said report, 4 cases are shown to be pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Hudood Ordinance in the Court of A C M, Orangi Town, Karachi. There is nothing on record to show, that what A has happened in these cases and whether any of these cases have resulted in any conviction of the applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, not a single prosecution witnesses have been examined in these cases so far. Thus it is clear that the complaint in question has‑been filed prematurely as held in a case reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 953 by my brother Zahoorul Haq. J. with this I am in full agreement, for the reasons given therein, In view of this, I quash the proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of S D M Nazimabad, Karachi, under section 110, Cr. P. C. and set aside the order dated 17th May, 1981 passed under section 112, Cr. P. C. and direct that the applicant be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer