MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus State
This criminal revision petition was filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner upon an application filed by his wife amidst matrimonial disputes. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in directing the registration of a case without hearing the petitioner and ignoring police inquiry reports declaring the matter false. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The court held that passing an order for the registration of a case without affording an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the order illegal, especially when police inquiries had already found the allegations to be false and concocted.
- Whether an order directing the registration of a criminal case can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused?
- Does an order for registration of a case sustain when police inquiries have already found the underlying complaint to be false and concocted?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this revision petition filed under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has called in question the validity of ah order, dated, 8‑12‑2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala whereby the S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Burewala was directed to register a case against the petitioner and others.
2. Brief facts of the case as emanated from the petition are that Mst. Shamim Akhtar filed an application against the petitioner and others before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala stating therein that she is wife of the petitioner and has been posted as teacher in Chak No. 120/EB and due to matrimonial disputes residing with her parents; that she has also filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against the petitioner; that on 24‑6‑2003 at about 2 a.m. she had slept with her mother and others in their residential house when the petitioner and others forcibly entered into the house and looted certain household articles on gun point whereupon the learned trial Court directed the S.H.O. concerned to register a case against the petitioner and others if any offence is made out against them; that on 8‑12‑2003 the matter was again placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala who again directed respondent No.2 to register a case against the accused persons and passed the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is against law and facts. Further contended that the learned trial Court was not justified while passing the impugned order for registration of case against the petitioner and others, that the petitioner has been condemned unheard at the time of passing the impugned order, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the contrary the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has strongly opposed the petition contending that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference by the Court.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It evinces from record that the parties of this case are husband and wife and there is civil litigation pending between them. It has also' come on the record that after passing the impugned order dated 25‑11‑2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala an inquiry was conducted by A.S.P., Burewala wherein it has been found that, the application of Mst. Shamim Akhtar i.e. respondent No.3 was false and concocted one. Thereafter, on the application of respondent No.3 inquiry was also conducted by S.H.O. Saddar Burewala who also found the same false and frivolous. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments urged and rightly so that the learned trial Court was not justified to pass the impugned order dated 8‑12‑20031 without hearing the petitioner. In this view of the matter by way of passing the impugned order, the petitioner has been condemned unheard which is against law.
7. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Court was not justified while passing the impugned order, dated 8‑12‑2003 in presence of the aforesaid inquiries conducted by the local police as well as by the S.D.P.O., Burewala, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not stand in the eye of law and calls for interference by this Court. Resultantly the instant revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 8‑12‑2003 is set aside.
H.B.T./M‑721/L Revision accepted.