MUHAMMAD NASIM QURESHI vs THE STATE
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nazimabad, Karachi, initiated upon a police report under the Sindh Crimes Control Act, alleging the applicant to be a habitual drunkard, pimp, and goonda. The core legal question was whether vague and general allegations without specific instances of time, date, and place justify proceedings against an individual under the Sindh Crimes Control Act. The Sindh High Court held that the allegations were indeed vague, that pending sub judice cases without prior conviction do not warrant such proceedings against the applicant, and that no grounds existed under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the pending proceedings. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act cannot be sustained on vague and general allegations lacking specific particulars of time, date, and place, especially in the absence of previous convictions.
- Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act be initiated on vague and general allegations without specific instances of time, date, and place?
- Whether pending sub judice cases without a previous conviction can form a valid basis for proceedings against an individual as a hardened criminal?
- Does the High Court have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5, Sindh Crimes Control Act
- Section 14, Sindh Crimes Control Act
1. ' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant before the A.-G. And S.D.M. Nazimabad, Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that on 5-11-1989 S.H.O. Gulbahar filed report before the learned Nazimabad against the applicant, inter alia alleging therein that he is a notorious and habitual drunkard and a pimp. He is notorious and has bad reputation in the locality.
3. His remaining at large is hazardous to the public. Since he is a notorious Goonda, no person from the public is prepared to come forward to give evidence against him.
4. ' On receipt of the above report, S.D.M. Was pleased to issue non-boilable warrants against the applicant, and he voluntarily appeared before the Court and was allowed bail.
5. ' The present application has been filed for the abashment of the above proceedings 'have heard Mr. Muniruddin AM, for the applicant, Mr. Vakeel Ahmed Qureshi appearing for the State, and have gone through the documents produced along with abashment application.
6. ' It has been contended by Mr. Muniruddin Alvi learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the allegations made against the applicant are vague and general in nature inasmuch as no specific instance with time, date and place, of the alleged acts complained have been mentioned in the report. Admittedly the applicant is not a previous convict. The two cases mentioned in the report are still sub judice before the Court of law. That there was no reason for the learned S.D.M. To issue non-boilable warrants against the applicant, and the process was issued in violation of mandatory provisions of section 5 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act.
7. ' Mr. Vakeel Ahmed Qureshi learned counsel appearing for the State has .Contended that looking to the circumstances of the case he has no objection if the proceedings were quashed.
8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The bare reading of the report shows that the allegations are vague and general in nature inasmuch as no specific instance with time, date, and place of the acts complained of have been mentioned in the report. The cases mentioned in the list of cases are still sub judice before the Court. There is no allegation that the applicant has ever been convicted for committing any substantive offence. The proceedings under Sindh Crimes Control are meant for hardened criminals and in fact there were no grounds for taking proceedings against the applicant under section 14 of Sindh Crimes Control Act. I, therefore, allow this application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned S.D.M. Nazimabad, Karachi.
Cited by 13 cases
- YAKOOB vs THE STATE 1999 P Cr. L J 921
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 111
- GHULAM HUSSAIN SOOMRO vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 1174
- SIKANDAR ALI Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 190
- SHAMSHAD AHMED QURESHI-- vs THE STATE 1994 PLD Karachi 115
- SAIN BUX vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 2298
- SARDAR alias SARDARO vs THE STATE and another 1993 P Cr. L J 2289
- SIKANDAR vs THE S.D.M., ROHRI and others 1993 P Cr. L J 2292
- GULZAR vs S.D.M, ROHRI and another 1993 P Cr. L J 100
- SONA MIYAN Versus STATE 1992 MLD 2404
- RAHIM BUKHSH Versus STATE 1992 MLD 2465
- ABDUL SATTAR BACHANI vs THE STATE 1991 PCr.LJ 2171
- ABDUL SATTAR BACHANI Versus THE STATE 1991 PCRLJ 2171