KARAM ELAHI and 2 others vs Mst. NASIM BIBI and another
This criminal petition under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed their revision petition against the trial court's order holding that prima facie an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was attracted instead of section 354, P.P.C., and that the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order altering or noting the applicability of a graver section after recording evidence warranted interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition lacked merit as the trial court had taken cognizance based on evidence and the object of the petition was not to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that High Court intervention under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is unwarranted when lower courts pass orders on sound legal footing after evaluating evidence.
- Whether the High Court can quash an order under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. where the trial court finds a graver offence is attracted after recording evidence?
- Does an order of the revisional court dismissing a revision petition against the trial court's view on applicable penal sections warrant interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.?
- Whether a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be maintained to defeat the advancement of a proper trial based on evidence?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The petitioners, namely, Karam Elahi and his son Muhammad Shakeel, through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seek the quashment of order dated 24-11-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Paharpur, District D.I.Khan, vide which their revision petition against the order dated 1-11-2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Paharpur was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Mst. Nasim Bibi, complainant/ respondent charged the accused/ respondents vide F.I.R. No.296 dated 21-9-2006 of Police Station Paharpur under sections 354/34, P.P.C. And complete challan was put in court against the petitioners to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 applied to the learned Justice of Peace/ Sessions Judge D.1. Khan for substitution of section 354 with section 354-A, P.P.C. Which was marked to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I D.I. Khan for disposal. However, the application was not considered being premature. The case was thus tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Paharpur who after recording evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 1-11-2011 observed that prima facie section 354-A is attracted to the case instead of section 354, P.P.C. Which is exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the aforesaid order through a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Paharpur who vide order dated 24-11-2011 dismissed the same in limine which is now under challenge in this petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It is reiterated that in the earlier rounds it was the respondent lady who twice approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paharpur once in his capacity as Justice of Peace for the issuance of directions to the local police to add section 354-A, P.P.C. Instead of 354, P.P.C. In case F.I.R No. 296 dated 21-9-2006 Police Station Paharpur and then for reframing of charge under section 354-A, P.P.C. Instead of section 354, P.P.C. But both of her prayers were turned down by the learned Judge vide orders dated 15-5-2007 and 2-4-2011 respectively. However, the learned Judge directed for recording of evidence by the trial Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Paharpur.
Thereafter, the learned trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence and hearing arguments came to the conclusion that section 354-A, P.P.C. Was attracted to the case in hand instead of section 354, P.P.C. Which is exclusively triable by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned.
Now that the learned court has taken cognizance of the matter, the object of the petition in hand under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In my considered view is not to, prevent the abuse of the process of the court but rather to advance the same which is neither the language nor the spirit of the ibid section. The impugned orders of the courts below are based on correct legal footings and need no interference by this Court.
5. Consequently, I find no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed.