| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3041 = 2001 SLD 3041 = 2001 YLR 197 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.224 of 2001, decided on 29th March, 2001
Presented By: Sarmad J. Omsani, J
Qurban Ali H. Chuhan for Applicant. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.224 of 2001, decided on 29th March, 2001
Presented By: Sarmad J. Omsani, J
Qurban Ali H. Chuhan for Applicant. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State.
SHAHNAWAZ JUNEJO ‑‑‑ Applicant
VERSUS
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 561-A, 195 (1)(a)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 188
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561‑A‑‑‑Inherent powers of High Court‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑ Principles‑‑‑When a particular action, investigation, report or any other step in lodging the F.I.R. or prosecution of a criminal case is shown to the High Court to be patently against the provisions of law or otherwise indicating that no case could possibly be made out, then High Court has the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, report etc. as no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter lingering on, which III fact amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122; Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257 and State through Advocate General, N.‑W.F.P. v. Gulzar Muhammad 1998 SCMR 873 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes Conflict in the Act and its Schedule‑‑‑If there is a conflict between the provisions o, an Act or Ordinance and the Schedule thereto, the main provision of such Act or Ordinance would prevail. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.188‑‑‑Criminal Procedure code (V of 1898), Ss.195 (1)(a) & 561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of F.I. R. ‑‑‑No Court could take cognizance of an offence under S.188, P. P. C. as provided by S.195 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. except on a complaint in writing of the concerned Officer etc. and the police, therefore, could not at all have taken cognizance of the matter and registered the F.LR‑‑‑F.I.R. in question, thus, was incorrectly lodged in violation of S.195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. and no conviction being possible on its basis, same amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court‑‑‑Applicant had correctly approached High Court under S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑F. I. R was quashed accordingly. Barkat Ali v. S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Kabirwala 2000 PCr.LJ 238; Khalid Iqbal Ghauri v. Allah Ditta, Magistrate 20170 PCr.LJ 1084; Makhdoom Khaliquzzaman v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ, 478; Syed Qaim Ali Shah v. The State 1999 PCr. LJ 1221; Kishoi Kumar v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1736; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122; Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257 State through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P v. Gulzar Muhammad 1998 SCMR 87 Ghulam Nabi v . The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1335; Gulzar v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ…