Sardar Khan and another vs The State
This petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Harnai, following the dismissal of the petitioners' application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest is entitled to a hearing or audience in a court of law. The Court held that the petition could not be entertained because the petitioners were fugitives from justice. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that an individual seeking the aid of the court or challenging judicial orders must first submit to the due process of law. By repeatedly failing to appear despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioners had lost their right of audience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a fugitive from justice cannot invoke the court's jurisdiction to seek relief while simultaneously evading its lawful process.
- Is a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest entitled to be heard in a petition for quashment of proceedings?
- Does a fugitive from justice have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an order of a trial court?
- Can a court entertain a petition filed by an accused who has failed to surrender to the process of law?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Regulation 15, Coal Mines Regulations 1926
- Regulation 25(1), Coal Mines Regulations 1926
- Regulation 121, Coal Mines Regulations 1926
- Regulation 70, Coal Mines Regulations 1926
ORDER
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAK HAIL, J.---This petition is directed against the orders dated 06.11.2018 and 22.1 1.2018 ( "impugned orders" ) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/MFC, Harnai , whereby the application under section 249-A, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Hence, this petition with the following prayer: "It is accordingly , respectfully prayed that proceeding pending before Judicial Magistrate amounts to abuse of process of law same may kindly be ordered to be quashed, in the interest of justice".
2. Facts of the case are that three separate prosecution statements against alleged contravention of sections 15, Regulations 25(1), Regulation 121 and Regulation 70 of the Coal Mines Regulations 1926, were received by the trial court for taking cognizance and summons were issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners did not appear before the court, therefore, there non-bailable warrants were issued with the direction that in case of non- execution of warrant, the Naib Tehsildar Shahrag to appear in person; that an application for cancellation of the warrants was filed by the petitioner No.1, which was accepted the warrants were withdrawn; that on 16.10,2018, Mr. Qasim Khan Tareen , Advocate appeared on behalf of his senior, counsel Mr. Munir Hashmi, Advocate, with the request that the latter would be filing his power , coupled with an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants, which application was accepted and the non-bailable warrants were again withdrawn; that on 29th October 2018, the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was filed for acquittal of the accused/petitioners, which was dismissed vide order dated 06th November 2018. Feeling aggrieved the instant petition is preferred.
3. Heard, record perused.
4. Perusal .of record shows that Judicial Magistrate, MFC Harnai in the above cases issued several non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners, but on each occasion the trial court was approached by the counsel for the petitioner , with assurance that the petitioners would appear before the court, while the application filed for exemption of the personal appearance of the petitioner No.2 was also declined vide order dated 06. 1 1.2018.
5. After discussing the background of the case, I now advert to the pivotal question raised in the instant case that whether a person who avoids appearance before the court, is entitled to any audience before a court of law or not.
In a celebrated judgment reported in PLD 1956 FC 43 , the august Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that; "The court would not act in aid of a person who was a fugitive from justice". In another case reported in 1999 SCMR 1619 , the Hon'ble apex Court again held that; "The above rule is in conformity with the fundamental rule of the administration of justice that persons seeking aid of justice in a criminal case should subm it to the due process of justice. Clearly , the Court would not act in aid of person who is a fugitive from justice and the petition filed by such a person against his imprisonment seeking leave to appeal is not entertainable unless and until the condition precedent laid down in the above rule is fulfilled i.e. surrender first, entertainment of petition later ."
In PLD 2002 Lahore 74 , it was held by their Lordships that; "The convict who becomes a fugitive from the law is not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 32 of the Ordinance to challenge his conviction".
In 1999 PCr .LJ 1381 , a Division Bench of Lahore High Court held that; "Superior Courts in our country have taken the view that an individual seeking review of a judicial order must surrender to the process of law and if he decamps, he loses right of audience".
6. Admittedly , a competent Court of law has been repeatedly issuing the warrants of arrest against the petitioners for their appearance and it is also on record that the petitioners are avoiding appearance and also their lawful arrest. In suchlike situation, if the instant quashment petition is entertained for its decision on merit without the petitioner's surrender in obedience to the warrants under section 204, Cr.P.C. issued by a competent court of law, then it would tantamount to abuse of the process of the court as a person who flees or escapes from law loses some of his normal rights available to him under the law .
For the above discussion and reasons this. Court is of the view that the instant petition of the petitioners cannot be entertained for their being fugitive from law . The same is therefore, dismissed.
This detail order will constitute the reasoning of short order dated 20th December 2019.