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.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 80 of 1987, decided on 24th March, 1987.
‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A and 110‑‑Quashing of preventive proceedings‑‑Allegations contained in police report filed under S. 110, Cr.P.C. against applicant very vague, indefinite and disclosed no specific instance so as to enable Court to come to prima facie conclusion that applicant was a dangerous and desperate criminal‑‑Proceedings under S. 110, Cr.P.C. on such report, held, not sustainable‑‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.
Ali Nawaz Dahraj for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 24th March, 1987.
This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings under section 110/55 pending before the learned S.D.M. Naushahro Feroze.
The facts leading to these proceedings in brief are that on 21‑2‑1987, a report was lodged with S.D.M., Naushahro Feroze by S.H.O. Police Mohbatdero to the effect, that the applicant was a Badmash, big thief, transactor of stolen property and harbourer of thieves. It was also reported, that he was prosecuted in Crime No. 63/75 under section 379, P.P.C. and in Crime No. 67/75 under sections 380 and 457, P.P.C. It was further reported, that he was twice prosecuted under section 110, Cr.P.C., once in 1975 and second time in 1981. On the basis of this report, the learned Magistrate passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C.
It is argued by Mr. Ali Nawaz Dahraj, that allegations contained in the report were vague and do not give any specific instance of the alleged criminal acts on the part of the applicant. It is further contended, that all the witnesses cited in the report are police officials and not even a single man from public has been cited as witness. It is further contended, that even the report does not show as to what happened to the cases in which the applicant was allegedly prosecuted. According to the application, the applicant has not been convicted even once. It is further contended, that admittedly no case for any substantive criminal offence has been instituted against the applicant after 1975. It is submitted that any proceedings under section 110 or under section 112 based on such vague and indefinite allegations have always been quashed by the superior Courts. Reliance is placed on 1986 P Cr. L J 418 where the proceedings were quashed when general allegations were made against the applicant and no instances were given therein, which could show, that he was a desperate and dangerous person. Reliance is also placed on 1983 P Cr. L J 205, 1980 P Cr. L J 953 and P L D 1981 Kar. 60.
The report on which the proceedings have been initiated has already been reproduced above. It will be seen that the report is very vague and indefinite and does not disclose any specific instance so as to enable the Court to come to prima facie conclusion that the applicant is a dangerous and desperate criminal. The proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. on such report cannot be sustained. Mr. Kazi Imdad Hussain for the State also does not support the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. which are accordingly quashed.
S.G.D./A‑16/K Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer