KASHIF SAEED SHAH vs ZULFIQAR ALI ZAARI and another
This criminal revision application challenged the procedure adopted by the trial court in a private complaint, where the applicant contended that the court was legally bound to issue warrants in the first instance and that the accused should not have been allowed to furnish bail bonds. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its procedure by issuing process instead of warrants and allowing the accused to furnish bail bonds in a private complaint. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was correct and lawful. It clarified that under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court has the discretion to issue process if sufficient material exists for trial, and Section 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 further empowers the court to exercise discretion regarding the issuance of warrants. The Court established the principle that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the issuance of process are directory rather than mandatory, as no specific penalty for non-compliance is prescribed, and the primary objective of the Code is to advance justice.
- Is a trial court legally bound to issue warrants in the first instance in a private complaint?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the issuance of process mandatory or directory?
- Does a court have the discretion to issue process instead of warrants in a private complaint if sufficient material exists for trial?
- Section 90, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Heard learned counsel. According to the learned counsel in a private complaint the trial Court is bound to issue warrants in the first instance and in the present case according to the learned counsel the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) has issued process. According to him, no application for bail was made by the accused and no bail order was passed by the trial Court, therefore, the Court has erred in law by following the procedure violative of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. ' With profound respect, the Court has adopted the correct procedure. Section 204, Cr.P.C. Requires a Court to issue process if it is of the opinion that there is sufficient material against the accused for trial. It further authorizes the Court that even in non-bailable offences, the process can be issued in the first place unless the Court is of the opinion that issuance of process may defeat proceedings by absconsion. This provision gets further strength from provisions of section 90, Cr.P.C., which again empowers the Court to exercise its discretion and in case if the Court is of the opinion that issuance of process might defeat the proceedings then the Court after recording reasons can issue warrants.
3. ' The grievance of the applicant is foreign to the provisions of sections 90 and 204 of Cr.P.C. As according to the learned counsel the accused after furnishing bail bond is attending the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code is meant to advance justice and the provisions provided therein are not mandatory in nature but are directory as no penalty for non-compliance has been provided therein. Consequently I am of the view that the procedure adopted by the trial A Court was proper and no injustice has been caused to the applicant.
4. ' The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Noor Bibi v. The State reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 505.
5. The cited case is distinguishable on facts as no F.I.R. In the present case has been lodged and instead private complaint has been filed. Even the suit authority does not advance the case of the applicant as the surety bond has been furnished by the accused in Court.
6. ' This Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed along with the listed application.