IMDAD KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal petition challenging proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could lawfully take cognizance and pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a police report that was vague, general in nature, and lacked specific evidence of prior convictions or cited witnesses. Upon review, the Court found that the police report contained only general allegations and that the pending cases listed against the applicant had not resulted in any convictions, nor had any prosecution witnesses been examined. Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings were initiated prematurely and constituted an abuse of the process of the trial Court. The Court quashed the pending proceedings and set aside the Magistrate's order, establishing the principle that proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be sustained on the basis of a vague, unsubstantiated police report without proper inquiry.
- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based on a vague and general police report?
- Is it legally permissible for a Magistrate to pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without conducting a proper inquiry?
- Are proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered premature if they rely on pending cases that have not resulted in conviction?
- Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the police report which is at page 17 of the above petition is not only vague and of a general nature, but in the said report neither any witnesses are cited nor list of any cases in which the applicant has been convicted and/or challaned have been given. In spite of this, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of this report and passed an order under section 112, Cr. P. C., without holding any inquiry. In view of this, learned counsel submitted, that initiating of proceedings against the present applicant amounts to abuse of the process of the trial Court and further said proceedings cannot legally be maintained. In support of this, learned counsel has relied on cases reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 953, 1978 P Cr. L J 1.61 and 269 and PLD 1981. Kar. 60.
2. This matter has been called twice since morning, but no body on behalf of the State has come forward to appear in this matter and as such I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. I have gone through the police report which is at page 17 ands I Bad that in the said report general and vague allegations are made against the applicant. However, 1 find that in the sheet attached with the said report, 4 cases are shown to be pending against the applicant under section 14 of the Hudood Ordinance in the Court of A C M, Orangi Town, Karachi. There is nothing on record to show, that what A has happened in these cases and whether any of these cases have resulted in any conviction of the applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, not a single prosecution witnesses have been examined in these cases so far. Thus it is clear that the complaint in question has-been filed prematurely as held in a case reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 953 by my brother Zahoorul Haq. J. With this I am in full agreement, for the reasons given therein, In view of this, I quash the proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of S D M Nazimabad, Karachi, under section 110, Cr. P. C. And set aside the order dated 17th May, 1981 passed under section 112, Cr. P. C. And direct that the applicant be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Cited by 7 cases
- ABDUL WAHAB vs STATE 1997 MLD 3274
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF PATOOJO And Another vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 20
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF PATOOJO and anothers vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 20
- ARSALA vs THE STATE and another- 1992 P Cr. L J 2219
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE and another 1993 P Cr. L J 146
- ABDUL LATIF Versus STATE 1987 PCRLJ 1403
- ALI vs THE STATE 1986 P Cr. L J 418