Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 765 2015 SLD 765 2015 YLR 1082
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-362 of 2014, decided on 27thMay, 2014. DATE of hearing: 7th May, 2014
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ
Abid S. Zuberi for Petitioners. Ali Haider Saleem, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh along with Investigating Officer Inspector Ali Haider Shah for
Respondent No. 1. Mushtaq Ahmed Joyia for
Respondent No. 2

ABDUL RAZZAQ LASHARI and 3 othersvsGOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 3 others

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 6,7

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 249-A,265-K

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 384,385,395

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S.6---"Act of terrorism"---Scope---Object or effect of act of terrorism is to strike terror or create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of people or any section of people/society. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.384, 385 & 395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249-A & 265-K---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Quashing of FIR---Extortion, dacoity and Bhatta---Petitioners were officials of electric supply company and facing criminal trial on the complaint made by respondent---Validity---Criminal case for theft of electricity was registered against complainant in year, 2009, who was acquitted on technical ground---Respondent was holding grudge against officials of electric supply company---Since registration of case against respondent till year, 2013, not a single complaint was made by him that officers of electric supply company were demanding bribe/ Bhatta or threatening disconnection---Electricity remained disconnected between years 2009 to 2011 and thereafter respondent started litigation with electric supply company---Present matter was case of hardship, as officers of electric supply company were implicated and made accused before Anti-Terrorism Court for performing their duties---High Court declined to ask petitioners to approach Trial Court for seeking remedy under Ss.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. as it would not secure the ends of justice rather it was very harsh---No probability existed that prosecution would result in conviction of petitioners on the basis of FIR and it would be sheer abuse of process against them---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction quashed proceedings pending against petitioners---Petition was allowed in circumstances. The State v. Asif Ali Zardari and another 1994 SCMR 798; Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 2008 SCMR 76; Maqbool Rehman v. The State and others 2002 SCMR 1076; Fazal Dad v. Col. (Retd) Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others PLD 2007 SC 571; Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 2009 SC 11; Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2011…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register