Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2342 2026 SLD 2342 = 2026 MLD 559
Sindh High Court
Crl. Misc. Application No. 197 of 2011, decided on 20th February, 2025.
Presented By: Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J
    Tariq Hussain for Applicant.       Javed Raza for
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.       Ms. Rahat Ehsan, APG.

Syed MOHAMMAD ABBAS---Applicant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 249-A, 265-K, 561-A

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 448, 427, 34

 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 249-A, 265-K and 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 427 & 34---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Allegation that complainant got the FIR against the accused/applicant with sole aim to deprive the applicant from inheritance and that the accused/applicant was colouring the civil dispute into criminal solely to pressurize the applicant and illegal investigation was carried out against the applicant, which required quashing of the same---Validity---Remedy provided under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., could not be construed as an alternate remedy or substitute for an express remedy provided under Ss. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case maybe---Therefore, the ordinary remedy provided under the law could not be bypassed or circumvented---Section 249-A,Cr.P.C.,provided the powers of the Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it is considered that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---Likewise, S.265-K, Cr.P.C., also vested in the Court (Sessions Court or High Court) the powers to acquit the accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, itis considered that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---However, according to the judicial consensus and unanimity matured on the characteristics of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., it is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction so conferred is curative in nature---In fact, the expression "abuse of process" used under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., connotes an unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings or process which also includes the presence of ulterior motives for activating the process for unjustified arrest or groundless criminal prosecution---Essential purposefulness of this doctrine is to foster and safeguard the judicial system, ensuring that it is not misused or blemished---This terminology can be comprehended as an acuity that if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register