| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6142 2024 SLD 6142 = 2024 PCRLJ 901 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Revision Applications Nos. S-113, S-129 and S-133 of 2022, decided on 24th November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Ishrat Ali Lohar and Hameedullah Dahri for Applicants. Abdul Waheed Bijarani, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for State. Muhammad Hashim Leghari and Roshan Ali Azeem Mallah for
Respondent Ali Bux.
Criminal Revision Applications Nos. S-113, S-129 and S-133 of 2022, decided on 24th November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Ishrat Ali Lohar and Hameedullah Dahri for Applicants. Abdul Waheed Bijarani, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for State. Muhammad Hashim Leghari and Roshan Ali Azeem Mallah for
Respondent Ali Bux.
DR. BAHADUR KHAN and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 200,202,204,265K
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 395,506(2),147,148,149,
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 200 & 202---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395, 506(2), 147, 148 & 149--Private complaint---Cognizance---Bailable warrants were issued by Trial Court against accused persons on complaint forwarded by Magistrate---Validity--Admittedly, there was dispute between the parties over piece of land---Besides the applicants had allegedly committed the offence/robbery for which the witnesses who were examined by the Magistrate during preliminary enquiry had fully supported the version of respondent/complainant thereby it was admitted---Once the complaint was brought on record the best course for the applicants would be to proceed with the trial instead of filing interlocutory applications seeking premature acquittal---Hence, the impugned order passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 200 & 202, 204 & 265-K---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395, 506(2), 147, 148 & 149---Private complaint---Cognizance---Application filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was dismissed---Validity---No doubt that there was no bar to file application u/s 265-K, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the trial even before framing of charge---Yet S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was not meant for a complaint case more particularly when the Trial Court had taken cognizance and matter before it (Trial Court) was at the verge of trial---Once the trial had commenced the best course for the applicants was to lead evidence instead of seeking premature acquittal---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Maqbool Rehman v. The State and others, 2002 SCMR 1076; Zafar and others v.Umer Hayat and others SCMR 1816; Muhammad Hayat v. Rafiq and 5 others, 2017 PCrLJ 219; Mst. Naheed v. Ameer Bakh.sh and 5 others 2016 YLR 975; Abdul Razzaq Lashari and 3 others v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 3 others 2015 YLR 1082; Yasmin Gul Khanani and another v. Tariq Mehmood and 2 others 2013 YLR 2716; Ghulam Mujtaba v. The State 2009 YLR 169; Roshan Ali v. Amir Bux and another PLD 20-0-2- Kar. 115;…