| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2184 2011 SLD 2184 2011 YLR 816 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment Petition No. 97 of 2009, decided on 14th October, 2010
SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Iftikhar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Asghar Ali Khan for
Respondent. Muhammad Farooq Khan for the State
Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment Petition No. 97 of 2009, decided on 14th October, 2010
SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Iftikhar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Asghar Ali Khan for
Respondent. Muhammad Farooq Khan for the State
Mir QASIM KHAN
VS
Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH and 6 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A, 200, 195(1)(C), 249-A, 265-K, 439-A, 417(2) & 476---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.467 & 476---Forgery of valuable security, will, etc., counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents other than those described in S.467, or possessing counterfeit marked material---Quashing of proceeding--- Inherent powers of High Court under S.561-A, Cr. P. C. ---Scope---Alleged offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, area Magistrate sent complaint file of petitioner to Sessions Judge---After deleting Ss.467 and 476, P.P.C., Additional Sessions Judge sent back the complaint to Judicial Magistrate for trial of remaining offences---Judicial Magistrate dismissed petition for quashment for being pre-mature---Additional Sessions Judge accepted revision filed by respondents and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner holding that the cognizance of the alleged offence could not be taken under S.195(1)(C), Cr.P.C.-Respondent contended that petitioner should have filed appeal under S.417, Cr. P. C. ---Validity---Section 417, Cr. P. C. dealt with appeal against acquittal of accused on merits or other grounds such as exercising the powers under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. but the same had nothing to do with maintainability, applicability oft certain sections of law and jurisdictional questions which could only be decided under Ss.435, 439, 439-A or S. 561-A Cr.P.C.-Acquittal meant give by a judge or jury that someone was not guilty---Additional Sessions Judge exercised powers under S.439-A, Cr.P.C. by accepting revision petition of respondents, the same powers could not be invoked by petitioner, before High Court---Section 561-A empowered the High Court to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise secure ends of justice---Where High Court arrived at conclusion that order passed by a subordinate court amounted to abuse of the process of court, High Court could remedy the injustice by exercising inherent powers---High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. had inherent powers to make such orders as might be necessary to give effect to any order or prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise…
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