| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 837 2012 SLD 837 2012 YLR 284 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-2547 of 2011, decision & hearing Dated: 13-09-2011.
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ali Gul Abbasi
C.P. No. D-2547 of 2011, decision & hearing Dated: 13-09-2011.
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ali Gul Abbasi
NANGAR KALHORO
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY HOME
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 148,149,324,353,393,000,000,000,000,000
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 249A,265-K,561A
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Scope---Resort to provisions of Art.199 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the case was an extraordinary remedy, which could be invoked only in extreme circumstances---Provisions of Art. 199 could never be exploited as a substitution for the prescribed trial or to decide the question of guilt or innocence of an accused---If prima facie an offence had been committed, ordinary course of trial before the court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction. Rubina Kausar v. District Police Officer 2011 MLD 1155; Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf 2006 SCMR 1192 and Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian PLD 1992 SC 353 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 561-A---Quashing of F.I.R.---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Scope and extent---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., was not an alternative jurisdiction or the additional jurisdiction, but it was a jurisdiction prescribed in the interest of justice to redress grievance for which no other procedure was available or had been provided by the Cr.P.C. itself---Power given by S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure---High Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent court had, after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to a view that a prima facie case was disclosed and had framed charges; or summoned accused to appear, unless it could be said that the charge on its face or the evidence, even if believed, did not disclose any offence---None of the grounds raised in the memo of petition attracted or justified at that point of time to hold that from the allegations raised in the F.I.R., no offence was made out---If quashing of criminal case was sought on the ground that charge was groundless or there was no probability of accused being convicted of the offence which question could be decided without appraisal of evidence, or the material placed on record, or where question was whether facts,…
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