| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3049 = 2001 SLD 3049 = 2001 YLR 215 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 163 of 1994, decided on 17th April, 2001.
Presented By: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J
Gulab Khan Kaimkhani for Applicants. Ghulam Muhammad Durrani for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 163 of 1994, decided on 17th April, 2001.
Presented By: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J
Gulab Khan Kaimkhani for Applicants. Ghulam Muhammad Durrani for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for the State.
Mst. KULSOOM and others---Applicants
VERSUS
THE STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 561-A
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 506(2), 406, 420, 34
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court--- Scope--- Inherent jurisdiction conferred upon High Court under S.561-A, Cr. P. C. should be sparingly used and only when it is demonstrated that the action, investigation, report or other step in lodging the F.I.R. or private complaint or the prosecution of a criminal case, is patently against the provisions of law or otherwise no case is made out upon which a conviction was possible---High Court, in such circumstances, would be justified in quashing the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter lingering which would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257 and State v. Gulzar Ahmed 1998 SCMR 873 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Quashing of proceedings-- Principles---Where the allegations disclose a prima facie case and the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the same, the proceedings cannot be quashed as the powers vested under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized so as to interfere in the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the Statute and High Court should be extremely reluctant where a competent Court has only taken cognizance of the matter. Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1335 and Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi v. The State PLD 1995 Quetta 76 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 506(2)/406/420/34---Criminal Proce dure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Criminal, offences, prima facie, had been made out against the accused who could not be said either to be innocent or that there was no possibility of their conviction in the case---Petition was dismissed accordingly. Raza Ali v. The State 1971 PCr.LJ 1296; Mazhar Ibnehassan Siddiqui v. The State 1997 PCr:LJ 1030; Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Yar 1999 PCr.LJ 1639; Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1335; Ghulam Akbar v. Muhammad Ilyas PLD 1975 Kar. 231; Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi v. The State TLD 1995 Quetta 76; Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257 and State v. Gulzar Ahmed f 998 SCMR 873 ref. Date of hearing: 6th April, 2001 …