Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 910 2018 SLD 910 2018 YLR 985
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 1056-Q of 2017, heard on 6-6-2017.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, JUSTICE
Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi for Petitioners. Sheikh Istajabat Ali Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

MST. PARVEEN AKHTAR AND 4 OTHERS

VS

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION 30 AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 204 & 561-A---Private complaint---Issuance of process against accused---Summoning of accused by trial Court to face trial---Powers and jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Powers and jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. were discretionary in nature and were exercised only if the Court was satisfied that no adequate remedy was provided by law---Exercise of powers under S. 561-A Cr.P.C. was an exception and not a rule. Chaudhary Munir v. Mst. Surriya and others PLD 2007 SC 189 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Two versions---Scope---When there were two versions of an incident, one version put forward by one party and counter version by its adversary; Trial Court while assessing evidence brought on record by the parties had to keep both versions in juxtaposition and then arrive at a final conclusion. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A, 200 & 204---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(i), 427, 447, 506, 147 & 149---Private complaint---Issuance of process against accused---Summoning of accused by Trial Court to face trial---Powers and jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioners and six others---Trial Court had summoned the petitioners and the others to face the trial---Petitioners contended that respondent had filed the private complaint as a counter blast of FIR got lodged by the petitioners and as such the complaint was not maintainable---Validity---Filing of complaint, recording cursory evidence in it and then on the basis of available evidence, order for summoning of an accused, could not be termed as abuse of process of law---Such like proceedings could not be challenged under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. but it might be called in question, through a revision petition and that too, before the revisional court of first instance---Petitioners, instead of adopting the legal mode of challenging the summoning order, through a revision petition before the competent court, had sought quashing of the said order by way of petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., which was not competent and maintainable, thus dismissed in limine.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492