ABDUL RASHID vs NIMRO And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a property dispute in Karachi. The petitioner sought to challenge an order of the High Court that quashed criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court erred in relying upon pleadings from a separate civil suit as evidence in criminal proceedings and whether the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A when the respondents had already unsuccessfully pursued revision applications and possessed an alternative remedy under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's submissions regarding the High Court's reliance on civil pleadings and the propriety of invoking Section 561-A despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies warranted further consideration. The Court established that the availability of alternative remedies and the evidentiary value of civil pleadings in criminal quashment proceedings are significant legal issues requiring appellate review.
- Can the High Court rely on pleadings from a civil suit as evidence when quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when an alternative remedy exists under Section 145(5) of the same Code?
- Does the dismissal of prior revision applications limit the High Court's scope for interference under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 145(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This petition has arisen out of proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the petitioner on 9-1-1985 in which after holding preliminary enquiry learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karachi passed an order dated 13-1-1985 attaching the property bearing survey No.212, Deh Gujro, Tapo Sonqal, District Karachi in respect of which, according to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dispute likely to cause breach of peace had arisen. According to petitioner he had purchased land measuring 1.04 acres out of the above survey number, but the private respondent "made unauthorised constructions and had refused to remove the same in spite of several demands".
2. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed a revision application in the Sessions Court, Karachi but it was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi by the order dated 5-3-1985. It transpires that the respondents then filed another revision application which too was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 9-4- 1986.
3. After the dismissal of both these revision applications, the respondent filed an application under section 561-A of the Code for quashment of the proceedings which succeeded by the impugned judgment dated 26-5-1986. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner filed this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
4. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Memon, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that in quashing proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, High Court has seriously erred on heavily relying upon the pleadings of a civil suit filed by the petitioner which in law do not constitute evidence in the criminal case.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that two revision applications filed by the respondents were dismissed, there was hardly any scope for interference by the High Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code, particularly when the respondent had an alternative remedy under the provisions of subsection (5) of section 145 of the Code. The above submissions amongst others deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.
6. The appeal will be heard on the present record at an early date It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.