PERVEZ AKHTAR RAJA vs THE STATE and anothers

{{PAGES MISSED}} petitioner to move an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. After disposal of the said petition, in compliance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court, final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was moved.

' After submission of challan, an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved before learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 2-11-2011, therefore, instant petition for quashment has been filed seeking the relief as stated above.

3. From perusal of record, it reveals that prosecution, at the time of submission of final report under section 173, deleted sections 452/511, P.P.C. In view of statements of P.Ws. Examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the police, who have not supported such allegations levelled by the complainant, which constitute offences falling under sections 452/511, P.P.C.

4. By deleting both the above referred sections, the police has only applied section 506, P.P.C., therefore, the petitioner has moved such application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial Court mainly on the ground that applied section 506, P.P.C. Is even not made out.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.

' Learned trial Court has erroneously failed to appreciate the material available on record, when it is the duty of the learned trial Court to take into consideration the requirements of sections 249-A, Cr.P.C. And 265-K, Cr.P.C., as to whether the charge, whatever either framed or going to be framed, is groundless and thereupon, there is no probability of accused being convicted.

6. On queries raised by the Court when it is a settled principle of law in view of case-law reported in PLD 2004 SC 298, on dismissal of application under section 249A, Cr.P.C. Or 265-K, Cr.P.C., whatever the case may be, revision is to be preferred to next higher forum. In case, an application is allowed as a result whereof, the accused is acquitted, there require filing of acquittal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following case-law: --

(i) 1995 MLD 511

(ii) 1987 SCMR 1371

(iii) 1988 CLC 33

(iv) PLD 1993 .Quetta 113

(v) PLD 2004 SC 298

7. The case-law referred above lead towards an aspect that if the case is exceptional, quashment could be directly invoked by exercising inherent jurisdiction with application of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

8. While going through the authorities referred above, view of learned counsel for the petitioner is fully supported. However, the same requires scrutiny of record available, as to whether the present case is exceptional one and comes within such criteria.

9. While referred the final report submitted by the police under section 173, Cr.P.C., it appears that sections 452/511, P.P.C. Have been deleted on the basis of statements of P.Ws. Recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C.

10. So far the concern of remaining evidence respecting alone section 506, P.P.C. Applied in the final report, neither any evidence is available on record nor the same transpires from the story narrated in F.I.R.

11. Another legal aspect requiring very important and crucial legal point while referring section 503, P.P.C., which defines criminal intimidation, it appears that no such ingredient is available to constitute offence falling under section 506, P.P.C.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 was put to such queries, as to what type of evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence to which, he could not reply satisfactorily. However, he emphasized that since challan has been submitted, therefore, it has to be finally decided.

13. Another query when raised, as to whether on the basis of evidence available with the prosecution, can petitioner be convicted? To which, he again could not reply satisfactorily.

However, he requested that in case, the proceedings are quashed, the complainant might not be deprived of from his legitimate right of filing a direct complaint.

14. In view of above legal position, there is no reason to continue the proceedings, which in my humble view is a hanging sword entangling over the head of the petitioner, which might continue for an indefinite period by protracting and prolonging the proceedings from the complainant side, as there is no iota of evidence available on record, which could be the basis for seeking conviction of the accused. As such, the continuity of the proceedings before the learned trial Court not only a futility, but would be an abuse of process of law.

15. In view of above observations, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are hereby quashed. However, the complainant will be at liberty to seek prosecution of the petitioner/accused by filing a direct complaint, if so advised.

16. Instant petition stands allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.