MUHAMMAD ABBAS BALOCH Versus DR. SHAFQAT HUSSAIN ABBASI

1. The facts of the case are that on 12th February, 1987, Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi was coming to attend the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, and was driving his car. He was intercepted by one Traffic Constable who demanded some documents. It is stated that Respondent, Mohammad Abbas Baloch misbehaved with the Doctor and passed some derogatory remarks against the behaviour of Doctors and also Judges of the Courts. Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi moved such application and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, issued notice to the Traffic constable, Mohammad Abbas Baloch. In pursuance of the notice, respondent appeared and furnished his reply as well as filed a statement on oath. The proceedings under the Contempt of Court are pending in the above Court and this quashment application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed whereby the proceedings initiated by the learned Judge have been challenged. .

2. I have heard Mr. Hameed Ayaz, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mohammad Abbas Baloch. It is argued that respondent has not committed any offence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offence under. the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. He has referred to the provisions of Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 and submitted that it is only the High Court and the Supreme Court, who can take an action. The main grievance of the learned Counsel is that since one year the proceedings are pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but he has not passed any order and this is abuse of process of Court. On the other hand, Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi is present and he is prepared to make a statement on oath that Applicant made such remarks which come under the purview of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The proceedings are still pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. In all fairness, he should have passed some appropriate order according to law. There are some provisions under Section 480 Cr.P.C. whereby the Courts can take an action for the Contempt of Court. At this stage, it would not be proper fort this Court to make any observation on the merits of this case. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, in my view car, make such a reference to the High Court if he is satisfied that prima facie case under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is made out. However. I direct the 1st Additional Sessions Judge to pass an appropriate order within a week as all the formalities have already been complied with. With these observations, this quashment application is disposed of as dismissed.

3. S.A./M-405/K Application dismissed.