Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 206-Q of 1982, decided on 17th Novetn ber,-1982.

-- S. 561-A - Quashment of proceedings-Locus standi-Petitioners fugitives from law - Petitioners, held, could not be given right of audience in quashment petition, in circumstance.

Gul Hassan v. The State P L D 1969 S C 89 ref.

----S. 561-A- Quashment of proceedings-Co-accused of petitioner fugitives from law whereas case against them one of joint liability, arising out of alleged fraudulent transaction to which each accused said to be a party,- Case for partial quashment, held, not made out, in circumstances

Muhammad Rafique for Petitioners.

Shaukat Rafique Bajwa and Nasim Iqbal for the State.

This quashment application has arisen out of a complaint filed by Syed Mustfa Ali, respondent, against Shah Muhammad and his two sons Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafique (petitioners) under section 420/419/468/423, P. P. C. read with section 34, P. P. C. The complaint is pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Akram, Cheema, M. I. C., Lahore since 26th of January, 1981.

2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the question in the case hinges on the report of the handwriting expert and the same matter was sub judice in a civil suit between the same parties, therefore, in order to avoid conflicting decisions the proceedings in the complaint be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. On 22-9-1982 the proceedings were ordered to be stayed subject to notice to the respondent (complainant). -It was also ordered that the accused need not appear before the trial Court till the disposal of this petition.

3. Contesting the quashment petition, learned counsel for the respon dent (complainant) contended that when this petition was filed in this Court, Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafiq petitioners were absconders before the trial Court and had been proceeded against. Being fugitives from law, they are not- entitled to any relief. Reliance was placed on the case Gul Hassan v. The State (P L D 1968 S C. 89). The power of attorney filed with the petition bears a thumb impression without name, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was that of She Muhammad petitioner. The power of attorney is alleged to have been signed by Shabbir petitioner. One thing is certain that Muhammad Shafiq petitioner never authorised-the counsel to file this petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not mention at the time of the admission of this petition that the two petitioners had gone abroad but this fact is not mentioned is the petition. Admittedly, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the two petitioners were proceeded against by the trial. Court for non-appearance at the trial. Learned counsel submitted that he was not aware of this fact then. Be/ that as it may, the fact remains that being fugitives from law, Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafique cannot be given the right of audience in this quashment petition.

4. Keeping in view the allegations in this case no distinction in the case of Shah Muhammad can be made, because it is a case of joint liability of the three accused, arising out of the alleged fraudulent transaction t which each accused was said to be a party. Under these circumstances, a B case for partial quashment is not made out. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Record of the case be sent back to the trial Court forthwith for further proceedings.

Quashment declined.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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