Muhammad Kabeer Khan Versus Zia-ul-Islam, ASI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a review petition in a case involving allegations of misconduct and physical torture against a police official. An FIR had been registered under Section 5(2) of the Azad Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 read with Section 109 of the Azad Penal Code. The High Court initially dismissed a revision petition based on an assertion that a final report (Ikhtatami) was submitted; however, an inquiry later revealed no such report existed. Consequently, a review petition was filed, which the High Court dismissed. Before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Director General Anti-Corruption confirmed that multiple investigations concluded the allegations were false and that petitioners failed to produce witnesses. During the hearing, petitioners offered an eleventh-hour pardon, leading the Court to find the litigation frivolous and an abuse of process. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 20,000.
- Whether an eleventh-hour retraction or pardon by a petitioner after prolonged proceedings renders litigation frivolous and an abuse of process?
- Whether leave to appeal will be granted against a High Court judgment where no arguable question of law or jurisdictional defect is identified?
- Section 5(2), Azad Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act 1950
- Section 109, Azad Penal Code
Order
Raza Ali Khan, J .--- The present petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated April 15, 2025, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitioners' review petition involving serious allegations of misconduct and physical torture against police official/respondent No. 1.
2. The facts of the case, as narrated, are that FIR No. 04/2020 under Section 5(2) of the Azad Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 (PCP) read with Section 109 of APC was registered at the Police Station Muzaffarabad on the direction of the High Court through its judgment dated September 17, 2020. Thereafter, the accused persons filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court, which was decided on November 23, 2022. Following the said decision, the accused sought bail before arrest before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was confirmed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Muzaffarabad, through order dated January 14, 2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the learned counsel for the accused raised an objection that the Ikhtatami (final report) had already been prepared and submitted before the competent Court, and that further proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Relying upon this submission, the High Court dismissed the revision petition through its judgment dated May 27, 2024. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application before the Director General, Anti-Corruption, on June 6, 2024, seeking verification of the alleged Ikhtatami. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that no final report had been proposed or submitted and that the matter was still under investigation and had not been consigned to record. In light of these disclosures, the petitioners filed a review petition before the High Court challenging the judgment dated May 27, 2024. The High Court, after conducting the necessary proceedings, dismissed the review petition through the impugned judgment dated April 15, 2025.
3. Owing to the gravity of the allegations, this Court deemed it necessary to summon the Director General Anti-Corruption. In compliance, the Director General Anti-Corruption appeared before the Court and submitted that the matter had already undergone multiple rounds of investigation, all of which concluded that the allegations were entirely false and contrived. Despite such findings, the petitioners continued to pursue protracted litigation, thereby preventing the matter from attaining finality. It was further submitted that, in the interest of transparency, the Director General Anti-Corruption personally invited the petitioners to produce the witnesses on whose statements the case purportedly rested; however, the petitioners failed to bring forth any witness or corroborative material in support of their claims.
4. When confronted with these developments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that his clients had decided just the previous night to pardon the accused-respondents. This 11th hour retraction casts serious doubt on the bona-fide of the petitioners and renders the litigation frivolous and vexatious in nature. Such conduct not only undermines the sanctity of the judicial process but also constitutes a clear abuse of process of law and the Courts. Additionally, the impugned judgment is found to be well-reasoned and free from legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect. No arguable question of law has been raised warranting the grant of leave.
In view of the foregoing, the petition for leave to appeal is refused. Owing to the frivolous nature of the proceedings and the waste of valuable judicial time, the petition is dismissed with costs amounting to Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand), to be deposited before this Court within thirty (30) days.
JK/39/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.