M. LATIF QURESHI vs The STATE
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed as premature an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether a petition for quashment challenging the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to proceed against an accused can be entertained before the Magistrate himself determines his own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in finding the quashment petition premature, as the objection regarding jurisdiction should first be raised before and determined by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a Magistrate must take up an objection regarding his jurisdiction in the first instance, dispose of it by a speaking order at the outset, and only proceed on merits if he concludes that he possesses the requisite jurisdiction.
- Whether a petition for quashment of criminal proceedings challenging a Magistrate's jurisdiction is premature when filed before the Magistrate determines the jurisdictional issue?
- Must a Magistrate decide an objection regarding his jurisdiction by a speaking order at the outset of proceedings?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 4-10-1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the application under section 561-A, Cr. P.
C. For quashment of criminal proceedings pending before Mr. Muhammad Yaqub, Magistrate First Class with section 30 Powers, Lahore was rejected as premature.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has contended that the learned Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to summon the petitioner and that the view of the learned Single Judge that the petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings was premature was not justified because the very authority of the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner was challenged.
3. We do not think that the learned Judge in the High Court had com--mitted any error of law in holding that the objection whether the learned Magistrate did have the jurisdiction or not to proceed with the matter was an issue that could be raised before him and that he should determine it in the first instance i.e. Therefore, the petition for quashment was premature. We would like to observe that the learned Magistrate shall take up the objection regarding his jurisdiction in the first instance and dispose it of by a speaking order at the outset of the proceedings and it is only after he has come to the conclusion that he indeed has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on merits, that he may continue the proceedings.
4. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE 1983 PLD Peshawar 160