LUQMAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant was alleged to be a habitual offender based on a report by the S.H.O., Panoakil. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted lawfully in initiating these proceedings and issuing an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court found that the Magistrate had passed the order in a mechanical, stereotyped manner without applying his judicial mind to the specific allegations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been acquitted in the two cases cited as evidence of his habitual criminality, and the witnesses proposed were either police officials or individuals with recorded enmity. Consequently, the Court held that continuing these proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings were quashed, establishing that a Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts before issuing orders under Section 112, rather than relying on mechanical or stereotyped reports.
- Does the issuance of a stereotyped order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without application of mind constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be quashed when the underlying allegations are based on cases where the accused has already been acquitted?
- Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. Applicant Luqman son of Nasrullah Indhar is facing inquiry under section 110, Cr.P.C. In the Court of S.D.M., Rohri. The proceedings have been initiated against him on a report made to the Magistrate by S.H.O. , Panoakil, alleging that the applicant is a habitual offender in committing thefts, taking Bhung and restoring stolen property and he is so dangerous that nobody is prepared to come forward to give evidence against him. This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been filed for quashment of the proceedings.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the allegations against the applicant are vague and there is no evidence that he is a thief or receiver of stolen property by habit. He has further urged that the learned. Magistrate had passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. In a mechanical form without applying his mind. He has also urged that the applicant has been falsely involved at the instance of the witnesses Yakoob and Sohno who have recorded enmity with him.
3. He has cited certain authorities in support of his submissions which will be referred to herein. Below.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded that the proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed.
5. It appears from the record of the proceedings that the report made by the S.H.O. , Panoakil was filed in the Court of S.D.M. , Rohri on 13-2-1984. The learned Magistrate passed an order under section 112, Cr.P.C. On the very day. The order was passed on a carbon copy of the stereotyped order under section 112, Cr.P.C. By inserting therein the names of the witnesses and particulars of two cases in which the applicant was involved. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the report made against the applicant I but he contented himself by inserting the names of the witnesses and the particulars of two cases mentioned in the report in stereotyped form and signed the order. Such treatment c: a case was deprecated in a case of Mehar Khan v.
6. The State reported in 1975 P. Cr. L J 257.
7. As regards the allegations against the applicant, it is alleged that he was involved in two theft cases without mentioning the result) of those cases. Certified copies of judgments in those two cases have been 'filed and they indicate that the applicant was acquitted in those cases. It further appears from those judgments that the witnesses cited in the proceedings against the applicant were witnesses against him in those cases in which he was acquitted. The other witnesses cited in' the proceedings sought to be quashed are the police officials.
8. It is thus evident that the proceedings against the applicant have been taken on a stereotyped report submitted by the police and the learned Magistrate has passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Without applying his mind and the evidence to be adduced is to come from three police officials and two inimical persons and the continuance of the proceedings will amount to abuse of the process of the court.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C. Against the applicant is quashed.
Cited by 6 cases
- SHANKAR LAL vs THE STATE 2000 P Cr. L J 2061
- 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