Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 69 of 1986,.decided on 12th March, 1986.

(Against the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, B.W.P. Bench, dated 12‑2‑1986, passed in CH. M. No. 1696‑Q‑85/BWP).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 439 & 561‑A‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that since a second revision before High Court was barred by S. 439(4)(6), Cr. P. C., filing an application under. S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C. in circum stances of case, was automatically barred, because this would tanta mount to circumventing law and annulling provisions of S. 439(4)(6), Cr. P. C.‑[Revision].

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Conflicting judgments on point involved by various High Courts and between Judges of same High Court‑Leave to appeal granted to examine point in question, in view of fact that there would be a number of situations where one of parties against which a patently unjust order is passed by lower Courts may be left without a remedy if High Court is precluded from preventing abuse of process of law by any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 12th March, 1986.

Facts leading to this petition are, briefly, that Mst. Rehmat Bibi and her son were maltreated and manhandled by the present petitioners. It is alleged that on account of the injuries caused to her by the petitioners she also suffered miscarriage. Since the police did not register the case on her report she was compelled to file a private complaint in November, 1982. Summons were issued to the present petitioners to stand their trial. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, under section 439, Cr. P. C. which was allowed by him.

Mst. Rehmat Bibi (respondent) challenged the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge before the High Court through an application under sec tion 561‑A, Cr. P. C. It accepted the same and restored the private complaint with the following observations :‑

"4. In my view, the order delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perverse and amounts to stifling the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered, with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, who after having found, that a prima facie case was made out, had only summoned the respondents. The detailed evidence was yet to be recorded. I would, therefore, hold that in the circumstances of this case, the order impugned reflects judicial laxity. It is high time, that the subordinate judiciary exercises its jurisdiction with utmost care and also with restraint in such like cases. The circumstances of this case and the evidence brought on the record did not at all warrant interference by the Additional Sessions Judge.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition and set aside the order dated 4‑11‑1984, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The complaint filed by Mst. Rehmat Bibi is hereby restored and the respondents shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 25th February, 1986, who shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With these observations this petition is allowed."

Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have come up to this Court for grant of leave to appeal.

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since a second revision before the High Court is barred by sec tion 439(4)(a), Cr. P. C. filing an application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. it is automatically barred, because this would tantamount circumventing the law and annulling the provisions of section 439(4)(b), Cr. P. C.

3. Learned Additional Advocate‑General who appeared in persuance to a notice issued by this Court, submitted that there are conflicting judg ments on this point by various High Courts and between the learned Judges of the same High Court.

We feel that this case needs further consideration, specially in view of the fact that there would be a number of situations where one of the parties against which a patently unjust order is passed by the lower Courts may be left without a remedy and if the High Court is precluded from preventing the abuse of the process of law by any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Leave is, therefore, granted in this case to consider the afore, mentioned.

4. Further proceedings in the trial Court are, however, stayed, but considering that the trial of a criminal case should not be kept pending for long, we would direct that this case be fixed for hearing at a very early date.

M. B. A. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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