NAVEDD-UL-LAIL vs The STATE and another
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of FIR No.135/2018 registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was ordered by a Justice of the Peace. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a quashment petition when alternate remedies exist, whether a pre-registration hearing for a prospective accused is mandatory under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the scope of inherent powers under section 561-A. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had alternate remedies available under section 249-A or section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the powers under section 561-A are inherent, non-alternative, and exercised sparingly in rare circumstances. Furthermore, the court ruled that giving a hearing to an earmarked accused is not mandatory when passing an order under section 22-A.
- Whether a prospective accused is entitled to a pre-registration opportunity of hearing under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable when alternate remedies under section 249-A or 265-K are available?
- Are the powers conferred upon the Chief Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 additional or alternative remedies?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J. The instant Cr. Misc. No.92/2019 has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No.135/2018 under sections 406/420, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Gilgit on the direction of learned justice of the peace Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 15-1 1-2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the direction of the learned justice of the peace, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner , which is not only illegal but also unwarranted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from bare reading of FIR, no cognizable offence is made out and the trial of the case will result into acquittal. No useful purpose will be served if the FIR is allowed to remain in field.
3. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the FIR was registered on the direction of the learned justice of the peace, which judgment/ order was passed, keeping in view the spirit and logic of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A or section 265-K, Cr.P.C. hence the petition under section 561-A, Cr .P.C. is not maintainable.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided the opportunity of hearing is not tenable as the hearing of an earmarked accused is not mandatory , while passing a judgment/order under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or section 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case may be. The powers conferred upon Chief Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. or neither additional nor alternat e. These powers are sparingly exercise d in very rare and exceptional circumstances. The petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise of the inherent powers in his favour .
5. The petition is not maintainable B and dismissed accordingly .