KHAIR DIN vs INAYAT AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the management of cross-cases arising from a single violent incident. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's direction that the trial of a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder) should proceed and conclude before the trial of a cross-case registered under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (attempted murder) could continue. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interpreted and applied established Supreme Court precedent regarding the stay of proceedings in cross-cases. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly interpreted the relevant precedent and that there was no justification to interfere with the order directing the Section 307 case to remain pending until the conclusion of the Section 302 case. The petition was dismissed on merits, although the delay in filing was condoned due to the petitioner's incarceration and the resulting ignorance of his family members.
- Should the trial of a cross-case be stayed until the conclusion of the primary case involving more serious charges?
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal if the delay is caused by the petitioner's incarceration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-It appears that a case under section 302/ 307/34, P. P. C. Has been registered at the instance of the respondents against the petitioner, because, in a fight which took place on the 12th of June 1971, one of the members of the party of the respondents received some injuries as a result of which he later expired.
2. The petitioner alleged that it was his party who were attacked and they had made their statements before the police at the Kahna dispensary, but the police, who were in collusion with the respondents, had refused to register their case. Thereafter, they had to file a complaint before a Magistrate, and on the order of the Magistrate a case under section 307/149, P. P. C. Has been registered against these respondents. Now both these cross-cases are proceeding; the 302 case has been committed to the Court of Session while the 307 case is being tried in a Court of a Section 30 Magistrate.
3. PLD 1971 SC 713) reversed the order of the Sessions Judge and directed that he should proceed and conclude expeditiously the trial of the section 302, P. P. C. Case. Until the conclusion of the said case, the pro--ceedings before the Section 30 Magistrate should remain pending and should await the trial of the section 302 case.
4. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal, and it is submitted on his behalf that the learned Judge of the High Court had misinterpreted the decision of this Court and wrongly stayed the proceedings before the Magistrate. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. The High Court, in our view, has rightly read and interpreted the decision of this Court above-referred to and there is no reason for us to interfere with his order.
5. This petition is also barred by seven days, and since we are disposing of this petition on merits, we will condone the delay as it has been occasioned by reason of the ignorance of the family members of the petitioner who is in jail.
6. The result, therefore, is that the delay is condoned but the petition is dismissed on merits.
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Shafiq vs The State, etc 2025 LHC 3828
- Syed Riaz Husain Shah vs Government of Punjab & 2 others 2021 LHC 7528
- Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lower Mall, Lahore Shakil Javed Chaudhry 2023 PCrLJN 56
- RAFAQAT ALI vs HIDAYAT ALI And Others 1986 P Cr. L J 989