NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Nazar Muhammad, seeking the transfer of a private complaint case pending against him under Sections 302 and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case was pending before an Additional Sessions Judge in Hafizabad, and the petitioner requested its transfer to a court in Pindi Bhattian, arguing that the alleged occurrence fell within the territorial jurisdiction of that tehsil. The respondent opposed the transfer, noting that the trial had already advanced significantly, with key eye-witnesses having been examined, and that the case had been validly assigned to the current court by the Sessions Judge under Section 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the respondent argued the objection was raised at a belated stage. The Court held that the assignment of the complaint was legally competent under Section 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings without prior objection, the Court dismissed the petition, applying the principle under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that such procedural objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
- Can a criminal case be transferred on grounds of territorial jurisdiction after the trial has advanced significantly?
- Is an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a trial court valid if raised at a belated stage after the petitioner has already participated in the proceedings?
- Does a Sessions Judge have the authority to assign a private complaint case to an Additional Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 193(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Nazar Muhammad through the instant petition has sought for transfer of private complaint under Sections 302 and 449 PPC brought by Respondent No, 2 Muhammad Yaseen against him from the Court of Mr. Parvez Ali Shah, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that Respondent No, 2 Muhammad Yaseen has brought the above mentioned private complaint against the petitioner.
The same is pending before the aforesaid learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hafizabad.
3. The petitioner has sought it's transfer from there to some competent Court at Tehsil Pindi Bhattian on the ground that the occurrence mentioned therein has taken place within the area of Police Station Sukheki, Tehsil Pindi Bhattian and hence, it ought to have been tried by a competent Court at Pindi Bhattian. His learned counsel has made his submissions on such line.
4. As against the same, learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 has opposed the request on the ground that the petitioner's trial in the complaint case had advanced considerably inasmuch as that the eye witnesses therein have been recorded and only some witnesses remain to be examined; that the learned Sessions Judge has made over the complaint case to the present Court as per the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and it being, so, can competently be dealt with by the present Court; and that the petitioner did not raise such objection at the earliest and rather at such a belated stage, when his trial has gone considerably ahead and so, the present position may not be disturbed.
5. Learned DPG has urged nothing in the matter.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
7. There is no denial to the fact that the complaint was made over to the present Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad. He was competent to do so as per the provision of Section 193(2) Cr.P.C. The trial of the petitioner has commenced in the same and it has gone ahead considerably as statedly three eye-witnesses have been recorded therein and only few witnesses left to be examined.
8. It is also an admitted position on the record that the petitioner before filing the instant petition has never raised such objection before the learned trial Court. He, rather, has associated himself with the proceedings therein without raising even a figure regarding any such irregularity therein. It while under the provision of Section 537 Cr.P.C. has to be raised at the earliest.
9. In the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, I have not been persuaded to accord acceptance to the plea of the petitioner for transfer of the said complaint case. The instant petition, therefore, is dismissed.