KACHKOL KHAN vs HAYA KHAN and another
This petition arises out of a judgment passed by the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking interference against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether a private complainant can invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an acquittal order when the governing statute does not provide a right of appeal to a private complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to entertain the petition, ruling that inherent powers cannot be exercised to provide a remedy or relief that is not allowed by law or has been omitted by the Legislature. The key principle laid down is that where the Legislature has not granted a right of appeal to a private complainant, recourse cannot be had to the inherent jurisdiction of the court as an alternate or substitute remedy.
- Whether a private complainant can challenge an acquittal order under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the statute does not provide a right of appeal?
- Can the inherent powers of the court be exercised to grant a remedy not allowed by law?
- Is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable against an acquittal order passed under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 by a private complainant?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 7, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition arises out of judgment dated March 29, 2000 passed by Peshawar High Court whereby request of the petitioner for interference in the order of acquittal passed by Special Judge, under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 dated March 9, 1999 exercising inherent powers under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel contended that as under section 7 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 right has not been granted to a complainant to file appeal against the acquittal order therefore, under section 561-A an acquittal order can be challenged. He has relied upon Faizur Rehman v.The State and others (PLD 2002 Peshawar 6). We have gone through this judgment, Relevant para there-from is reproduced herein below: "It is well-settled that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is not allowed by law in cases where the provisions of law are clear and where the Legislature has not granted the right of appeal to private complainant, recourse cannot be had to the inherent jurisdiction and the Court cannot, contrary to the mandate of Legislature by relying upon its inherent power, grant relief."
2. Learned Larger Bench of the Peshawar High Court had affirmed above view relying upon the judgments pronounced by this Court from time to time as well as the judgments by the Indian Courts and had categorically held that the private complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to avail alternate or substitute remedy for what has been denied by law. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not helpful to him, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has rightly declined to entertain the petition. Petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the purpose of interfering in the acquittal order passed by Special Judge, under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, was not maintainable.
3. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Sajeda Mushtaq vs Federation of Pakistan and others 2019 YLR 2364, 2018 SHC 1124