MUHAMMAD ALI and others vs THE STATE and others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from case 'State v. Muhammad Ali and two others'. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the entire proceedings and instead remanding the case to the trial court for framing a fresh charge against two of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court was unexceptionable as the remand order directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court laid down that where criminal proceedings do not warrant total quashment, a partial remand for framing fresh charges and proceeding according to law is legally sound. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can criminal proceedings be partly quashed while remanding the matter to the trial court for framing fresh charges?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order remanding a criminal case to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an order refusing full quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Muhammad Ali, Nasir Ali and Nadir Ali filed a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, for quashment of proceedings in criminal case "State v. Muhammad Ali and two others" under section 325/34, P.P.C. The learned Judge of the High Court disposed of the petition by order dated 18-4-1989 observing thereby, "The upshot of the above discussion is that it is not a fit case in which whole of the criminal proceedings be quashed, but while accepting this petition partly, I remand the case to the trial Court with the direction that the charge against petitioners 2 and 3 be framed afresh and thereafter he should proceed in accordance with law".
2. ' The petitioners are not satisfied with this order. They now seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. There is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment. The case has been remanded to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
4. ' No case is made out for leave to appeal. Dismissed.