Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 143/Q of 1985, decided on Ist December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Accused placed in column No. 2 of challan summoned by trial Court as accused‑‑Three Investigating Officers having unanimously found accused to be innocent‑‑Order of trial Court summoning accused, to face trial, held, was arbitrary inasmuch as it had not applied its mind to F.I.R. statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161, Criminal Procedure Code, opinion of three Investigating Officers and fact that his name was placed in Column No. 2 of challan which related to persons, who were, not challanad, order of Court was, therefore, quashed.

M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Petitioner.

Farrukh Humayun for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st December, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. briefly, are that on 15‑1‑1977 a case under section 406/420, P.P.C. was registered at P.S. Hafizabad against. Haji Muhammad Aslam petitioner and 9 others vide F.ER. No. 2/77. The case was investigated by Ch. Sane Ullah, S.I., Haji Amen Ullah, S.I and Abdul Malik A.S.I., Crimes Branch, Lahore. The three Investigating Officers unanimously found Hap Muhammad Aslam petitioner and 3 others innocent and their names were, therefore, placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan. The names of the remaining 6 accused were placed in Column No. 3 of .the Challan. When the challan was received in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Hafizabad, he while summoning the accused persons also issued process against the petitioner on 8‑8‑1981. On this, the petitioner moved application for his pre‑arrest bail which was granted by the High Court on 18‑7‑1984. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and requested for the review of the order, dated b‑8‑1981 whereby he was summoned as an accused person. The learned trial Court, however, refused to review the order, dated 8‑8‑1981, hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner was found innocent by the three Investigating Officers and his name was placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan yet the trial Court has arbitrarily summoned him as an accused. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the order of the trial Court.

3, I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was found innocent by the three Investigating Officers that his name was placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan and that Column No. 2 contains the name of the persons who were not challaned as an accused. Despite that the learned trial Court has arbitrarily summoned the petitioner to face trial, inasmuch as, it has not applied its conscious mind to the F.I.R., statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. the opinion of the three Investigating Officers declaring the petitioner innocent and the fact that his name was placed in Column No. 2 of the Challan which relates to persons, who are, in fact, not challaned. That being the position, there is no opinion but to set aside and quash the impugned order. Order accordingly.

S.A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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