ALLAHBANDA AND Another vs Haji AKHIAUDDIN AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a second application for the quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners, facing a complaint under Sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had previously sought quashment, which was not pressed, and a transfer of the case, which was granted. Subsequently, they filed a second application for quashment, which the High Court dismissed, holding it lacked competence to review the previous order. The core legal question was whether a second application for quashment under Section 561-A could be maintained without fresh material. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that repeated applications for quashment without new evidence constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Court further observed that allegations of danger to the petitioners' lives upon attending court in another district should be addressed by seeking police protection rather than through repeated transfer applications. The principle established is that successive applications for quashment under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. are not maintainable absent fresh material.
- Can a second application for quashment of proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained without the introduction of fresh material?
- Does the filing of repeated applications for quashment without new evidence constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-A complaint under sec--tions 419 and 420, P. P. C. Was filed against the petitioners by Haji Akhiauddin, respondent, in the Court of a Magistrate at Bannu. The petitioners who reside in Karachi and were summoned to appear in Court thereupon moved the High Court of N.-W. F. P. Under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., for quashment of the complaint and in the alternative for transfer of the case to Peshawar District.
2. At the hearing of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press for quashment of the proceedings in the complaint and the prayer to that effect was rejected. The second prayer was, however, allowed and the case was transferred to the Court of a Magistrate in district Dera Ismail Khan.
3. Before any witnesses were examined, the petitioners again applied to the High Court for quashment of the proceedings under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The application was dismissed by another learned Judge on the ground that a previous application in similar terms had been dismissed by a Judge of this Court and he was not competent to review his order.
4. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal inter alga on the ground that there was no legal bar to the institution of a second petition under section 461-A, Cr. P C., for quashment of the proceedings in the complaint case and the High Court has erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction in it by law.
5. Mr. Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, who appeared in support of the petition, did not cite any authority in support of the pro--position that repeated applications for quashment under sec--tion 561-A can be maintained without any fresh material having been brought on the record. Indeed such a course will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and on that ground alone the second application was liable to be dismissed.
6. The trial Court next expressed apprehension that if the petitioners undertake a journey to Dera Ismail Khan the respon--dent will have them murdered. He, therefore, asked for transfer of the case to district Peshawar. We are not seized with the question of transfer of the case from D. I. Khan to Peshawar district. But if the petitioners apprehend danger, they should seek help from the Police and we are in no doubt that the District Police as well as the Magistrate in whose Court the petitioners have to put in appearance will afford them necessary protection.
7. The petition is dismissed.