KALA KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicants seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Sanghar, in a criminal case registered under Section 420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants contended that the proceedings were initiated malafidely and that no prima facie case was established, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of the court. The respondents argued that sufficient evidence existed and that the trial had already commenced with the recording of the complainant's examination-in-chief. The Court observed that the trial court had already taken cognizance and framed charges, and it could not be determined with certainty that the charges were groundless or that conviction was improbable. Furthermore, the applicants' previous application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been dismissed by lower courts. The Court held that quashing the proceedings at this stage would be inappropriate as it would stifle ongoing criminal proceedings. The application was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the case within two months.
- Is it appropriate to quash criminal proceedings when the trial has already commenced and charges have been framed?
- Does the existence of a pending application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the High Court from quashing proceedings?
- Can proceedings be quashed if it cannot be determined with certainty that the charges are groundless or that conviction is improbable?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOS-A K. J.---The applicants seek quashment of the proceedings pending before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Sanghar in Criminal Case No,30 of 2005, arising out of F.I.R.
2. No,96 of 2004, registered against the applicant under section 420/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sinjhoro.
3. ' The main contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the proceedings have been undertaken malafidely and that no offence under section 420, P.P.C. Has been prima facie made out therefore, proceedings tantamount to abuse of process of Court.
4. ' Learned A.A.-G. As well as counsel appearing for the private respondent submit that there is sufficient prima facie, evidence against the applicants. There are only two witnesses in the case, out of which the examination-in-chief of the complainant has been recorded at the moment it will not be appropriate to throttle the proceedings.
5. ' The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
6. ' The fact of the matter is, that the trial Court has already taken cognizance, the trial has commenced consequent upon framing of the charge and the evidence is being recorded. On perusal of the F.I.R. And charge Sheet, it could not be said with certainty that the charges are groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence.
7. Application moved by the applicants under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. As well as the revision application have been dismissed by the Courts below by passing elaborates orders. It will be inappropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage as it will give an impression of stifling the criminal proceedings, which is not desirable.
8. ' The application is accordingly dismissed.
9. ' The trial Court is however, directed to conclude the case within two months and pronounce the judgment.