Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 188 of 1975, decided on 23rd January, 1976.
(On appeal from an Order of the Lahore High Court, made on 25‑3‑1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21/Q of 1973).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S . 406/420/468‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Facts alleged in complaint prima facie disclosing commission of criminal offence‑‑Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings against accused, held, unexceptionable in circumstances.
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Powers under S. 561‑A, Criminal Procedure Code, held, were intended to prevent abuse of process of Court but not to stii7e prosecution.
Abdul Majid with Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1976.
‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court, by its order, dated 25‑3‑1975, to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No. 1 under sections 406/420 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The main ground urged in support of the petitioners, application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was that the facts alleged in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. After perusing the complaint in question the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that, in his view, the facts alleged therein did disclose a prima facie offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a business agreement between the parties and the dispute is in fact of a civil nature. He contends that the respondent has also initiated proceedings by way of a civil suit, and, therefore, the criminal prosecution initiated by him amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
We have perused the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners, and we find that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in observing that the facts alleged do prima facie disclose the commission of criminal offence. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the proceedings. Powers under section 561‑A are intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, but not to stifle prosecution.
The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer