BARKAT ALI Versus REHMAT ALI

Applicant Khalid Majeed, against whom a report under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, was submitted by the S.H.O., Nabi Bux Police Station Karachi on 17-12-1991 before the A.C. and S.D.M. Garden, Karachi, seeks quashment of the proceedings through this application under section 561-A of Cr.P.C.

Briefly stated the facts are that report dated 17-12-1991 under section 14 of the S.C.CA. was submitted against the applicant in the Court of A.C. and S.D.M. Garden, Karachi, in which it was stated that the applicant was active member of "Sunny Tehrik" and creating trouble in the prayers in Noor Masjid. It was further stated in the report that the applicant was accused in 5 cases of Police Station Nabi Bux, Karachi and was arrested in those cases but later on released by the Courts. Applicant was stated to be indulging in activities, because of which life of general public was in danger and further that it was expected, that applicant would commit any serious offence in the locality at any time. On the basis of such report the learned S.D.M. passed an order on 28-12-1992, registered the case against the applicant and issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties belonging to the same locality.

3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that out of five cases mentioned in the report, two cases at Sr. Nos.1 and 2 have ended in compromise while the others are still pending and all cases of the same police station, clearly reflects the mala fide of the S.H.O. when in fact applicant had not committed any such offence. No one has been named as a witness in the report which again is vague and general in nature and does not specify the time, date or place of such offences. It is next argued that only a notice dated 13-10-1992, a photostat copy of which is placed on record, was sent to the applicant, pursuant to which he appeared before the learned S.D.M. and was taken into custody. The last contention of the learned Advocate is that there has been non-compliance of the sections 5 and 6 of the Act and no cognisance could lawfully have been taken by the learned S.D.M. on the basis of the report filed by the S.H.O. In support of these contentions, the learned Advocate referred to Sona Miyan v. The State 1992 M L D 2404, where this Court quashed the proceedings of a case under section 14 of the S.C.C.A. where the police had not mentioned the date, time and place of any act alleged to have been committed by the accused and the allegations were vague and general in nature. Reliance is also placed on Gul Ajab Khan v. The Tribunal/A.C. and S.D.M. and 2 others 1991 P Cr. L J 1931, where this Court quashed the proceedings against the accused charged under section 14 of the S.C.C.A. as the S.D.M./Tribunal had not complied with mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.

Mr. Abdul Hakeem H. Bijarani, learned A.A.-G. does not support the order of the learned S.D.M. who took cognizance of the case and issued D.Ws. against the applicant.

4. I have gone through the record and have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The report submitted against the applicant shows that he is accused in 5 cases registered at Police Station Nabi Bux, two out of which have ended in compromise. The remaining three cases are still pending and no conviction is recorded against the applicant. No names of witnesses have been mentioned in the report against the applicant and compliance of sections 5 and 6 in particular has not been made. Mere pendency of some cases would not make applicant a habitual offender so as to be proceeded against under section 14 of the Act. The cognizance is taken by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal on the basis of the report of the S.H.O., Police Station Nabi Bux which report is vague and general in nature. Continuance of proceedings against the applicant, in these circumstances, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court anti the same are hereby quashed. By a short order, dated 17-2-1993, the proceedings were quashed and the above are the reasons for the same.

N.H.Q./K-341/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.