SIRAJ DIN and another vs PEER SALIM and another
This matter originated from a private complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Additional Sessions Judge issued bailable warrants against the petitioners. The petitioners sought the quashment of these proceedings before the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the application, observing that the preliminary inquiry and the statements recorded therein sufficiently disclosed a prima facie case against the accused, rendering the proceedings fit to continue. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that where a preliminary inquiry establishes a prima facie case, the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that quashment is not appropriate when the initial judicial process is supported by sufficient material gathered during a preliminary inquiry.
- Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a preliminary inquiry has established a prima facie case?
- Is the issuance of bailable warrants by a trial court following a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--A learned Additional Sessions Judge, after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him, on a private complaint under section 307 read with section 149, P.P.C., under section 202, Cr.P.C. Issued bailable warrants to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners moved the High Court for quashment of the proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The learned High Court has held that the process issued against the petitioners was after preliminary enquiry wherein the statements of the witnesses A recorded did disclose a prima facie case against the applicants; hence this was not a fit case for quashment.
3. ' The view expressed by the learned High Court above is plainly correct. No ground exists for interference therewith. This petition for leave to appeal, accordingly, must fail and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ZAKIR And 9 Others vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Another 1992 P Cr. L J 2320