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 Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 1984, decided on 8th August, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss. 110, 112 & 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Magistrate passing order under S.112, Criminal Procedure Code, against accused on very date on which report was made against him by police‑‑Order passed on a carbon copy of Stereotyped order inserting therein‑ names of witnesses and particulars of two cases in which accused was involved‑‑Magistrate did not apply his mind to report made against accused‑‑Record showing that accused was acquitted in two cases cited by police‑‑Evidence adduced coming from three police officers and two inimical ‑ persons 'who were also witnesses against accused in said two cases wherein accused was acquitted‑‑Continuance of proceedings in circumstances amounting to abuse of process of Court‑‑Proceedings, thus quashed.
Abdul Kadir Sheikh for Applicant.
Abdul Sattar Chohan for the State.
Dates of hearing: 7th and 8th August, 1984.
Applicant Luqman son of Nasrullah Indhar is facing inquiry under section 110, Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.M., Rohri. The proceedings have been initiated against him on a report made to the Magistrate by S.H.O. , Panoakil, alleging that the applicant is a habitual offender in committing thefts, taking Bhung and restoring stolen property and he is so dangerous that nobody is prepared to come forward to give evidence against him. This application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of the proceedings.
The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the allegations against the applicant are vague and there is no evidence that he is a thief or receiver of stolen property by habit. He has further urged that the learned. Magistrate had passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. in a mechanical form without applying his mind. He has also urged that the applicant has been falsely involved at the instance of the witnesses Yakoob and Sohno who have recorded enmity with him. He has cited certain authorities in support of his submissions which will be referred to herein. below. The learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded that the proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed.
It appears from the record of the proceedings that the report made by the S.H.O. , Panoakil was filed in the Court of S.D.M. , Rohri on 13‑2‑1984. The learned Magistrate passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. on the very day. The order was passed on a carbon copy of the stereotyped order under section 112, Cr.P.C. by inserting therein the names of the witnesses and particulars of two cases in which the applicant was involved. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the report made against the applicant I but he contented himself by inserting the names of the witnesses and the particulars of two cases mentioned in the report in stereotyped form and signed the order. Such treatment c: a case was deprecated in a case of Mehar Khan v. The State reported in 1975 P. Cr. L J 257.
As regards the allegations against the applicant, it is alleged that he was involved in two theft cases without mentioning the result) of those cases. Certified copies of judgments in those two cases have been 'filed and they indicate that the applicant was acquitted in those cases. It further appears from those judgments that the witnesses cited in the proceedings against the applicant were witnesses against him in those cases in which he was acquitted. The other witnesses cited in' the proceedings sought to be quashed are the police officials.
It is thus evident that the proceedings against the applicant have been taken on a stereotyped report submitted by the police and the learned Magistrate has passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. without applying his mind and the evidence to be adduced is to come from three police officials and two inimical persons and the continuance of the proceedings will amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Accordingly, the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. against the applicant is quashed.
M.Y.H. Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer