Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 67-Q of 1983, decided on 25th April, 1987.

---S.561-A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182--Quashing of proceedings--No evidence recorded by Trial Court in case and it was premature to hold that proceedings under S.182, Penal Code, against accused amounted to an abuse of process of Court--Contention that there was no probability of conviction of accused under 5.182. Penal Code, because witnesses proposed to be examined by prosecution were not reliable, requiring deeper appreciation of evidence which was function of Trial Court--Application for quashing proceedings declined in circumstances.

Uris v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 50 and Taj Muhammad v. State 1980 P Cr. L J 1003 ref.

Kh. Ashfaq Ahmad and Jariullah Khan for Petitioner.

Sh. Afzal Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987.

Through this petition Haji Ejaz Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to quash proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. pending against him in the Court of A.C. /Magistrate Section-30. Daska

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly are that on 26-1-1980 Haji Ejaz Ahmad petitioner lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Daska under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 wherein he levelled allegations of abduction of Mst. Abida and theft of ornaments and cash of Rs. 21,000 against Ghulam Muhammad, Shamshad Ali, Mukhtar All and Mst. Salam. Mst. Abida in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. falsified the entire allegations. She stated that she was not abducted by Shamshad Ali and others and had in fact, contracted marriage with Mukhtar Ali with her own consent. On this the police cancelled the case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 and prepared a complaint under section 182, P.P.C. and presented the same before A. C/ Magistrate Section-30 for prosecution of the petitioner, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of process of Court, inasmuch as although the complaint was filed on 22-12-1980 yet no evidence has been recorded so far; that there is no probability of the conviction of the petitioner under section 182, P.P. C. because prosecution case against him rests on the statements of the Investigating Officer and Mukhtar Ali P.W. and no other independent witness has been cited in the Kalandra; that petitioner did not know that information given by him to police was false because occurrence was told to him by Bashir Ahmad P.W. Reliance has been placed on case Uris v. The State P L D 198.1 Kar. 50, Taj Muhammad v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 1.003. Learned counsel for the State as well as for Mukhtar Ahmad respondent No.2 have opposed this petition. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel .for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner, lodged F.I.R. at the Police Station wherein he claimed to have seen the accused mentioned therein taking away Mst. Abida in a car; that Mst. Abida refused the allegations of her abduction by Ghulam Muhammad and others; that she categorically stated in her statement before the Police that she married with Mukhtar Au with her consent;, that the police found to report lodged by the petitioner totally false; that in view of his claim to have seen Ghulam Muhammad and other taking away Mst. Abida with them in a car, it can safely be inferred that he fully knew that the information given by him to police was false; that by the fact of lodging F.I.R. it is very much obvious that he wanted the police to use its power to the harm or annoyance of the accused named therein; that since no evidence has been recorded by the trial Court; therefore, it would be pre-mature to hold that the proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. against him amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The contention of the learned counsel that there is no probability of conviction of the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. because the witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution are not reliable requires deeper appreciation of evidence which being function of the trial Court I do not desire to pre-empt the same.

For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. The "Atrial Court shall conclude trial within 3 months.

M.Y.L./E-1/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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