Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37-Q of 1983, decided on 2nd May, 1983.

--Ss. 190 & 561-A-Cognizance of offence-Magistrate not summon ing accused, placed in column No. 2 of challan, before framing of charge, held, can summon him on application of complainant with out first recording some evidence-Magistrate may summon any person as an accused at any time i.e. before proceedings, during proceedings and after proceedings--Petition for quashing of proceedings dismissed.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Kung for Petitioner.

The facts giving rise to this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of proceedings are that on 13-9-1981 on the report of Muhammad Yousaf a case under section 148/324/149, P.P.C. was registered against Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Eisa and Manda, the 3 peti tioners and 4 others.

2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they in furtherance of their common object caused injuries to Muhammad Younas s/o Kamal and Muhammad Younas s/o Allah Ditta with sharp-edged as well as blunt weapon. After the investigation, the police prepared report under section 173, Cr. P. C. placing the petitioners in column No. 2 of the report. The challan was submitted before the Court. On 7-3-1982, the trial Court framed charge against 4 co-accused. Muhammad Yousaf complainant moved application for issuance of process against the petitioners and for their prosecution alongwith 4 co-accused. Thereon, the trial Court decided to summon the petitioners, vide its order dated 31-5-1982. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed revision against this order which was dismissed on 29-8-1982. Hence this petition.

2. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to summon the petitioners. He explains that since the Magistrate had not summoned the petitioners before framing the charge, he could not summon them on the application of the complainant without first having recorded some evidence.

As against this, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. The relevant provisions of law may be reproduced with advantage:

Section 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate.---Except as hereinafter provided, any District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate, specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence

(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) Upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer;

(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.

4. The plain reading of these provisions indicate that Magistrate may summon any person as an accused at any time i.e. before the proceedings, during the proceedings and even after the proceedings. There does not appear to be any legal bar for not summoning any person to face trial at any particular stage of the case. The contention raised by the learned counsel has, therefore, no force, Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

S. G. D. 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.