Khan ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mian MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN DAULTANA
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, which transferred a defamation complaint filed by Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana against Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan from the Court of the Assistant Commissioner to the High Court's original side. The transfer was granted based on the high political and social status of the parties involved. The appellant challenged this order, questioning whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to transfer the complaint before the issuance of summons to the accused and whether the parties' social status constituted a valid legal ground for such a transfer. However, during the pendency of the appeal, both parties assumed high-ranking government positions, rendering them disinterested in pursuing the litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to adjudicate the legal questions raised, noting that the complaint had likely been abandoned. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with the Court determining that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the abstract questions of law under the changed circumstances.
- Can a criminal complaint be transferred to the High Court before the issuance of summons to the accused?
- Does the high political or social status of the parties constitute a valid ground for transferring a criminal case to the High Court?
- Section 500, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of the order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan dated 29th July, 1970, whereby the complaint lodged by Mian Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Daultana, respondent heroin, against Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Barrister at-Law, appellant, under section 500, P. P. C. Was transferred for trial to the High Court on its original side.
2. ' The complaint was lodged by the respondent on the 25th July, 1970, it's the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore, who recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant and his two witnesses on the 28th July, 1970, and adjourned the hearing to 18th August, 1970, for consideration whether the complainant had made out a case for issuance of summons to the respondent.
3. Simultaneously counsel for the respondent asked for stay of further proceedings on the ground that an application for transfer of the case was being moved for trial of the complaint in the High Court.
4. ' On the following day, an application under section 526, Cr. P. C. Was moved by the respondent in the High Court for transfer of the case to the original side of the Court on the ground that the complainant and the respondent held high political and social status which required that the case may be heard by the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the application without issuing notice to the appellant and transferred the complaint for trial to the original side of the High Court.
5. ' Aggrieved by the above order of the High Court, the appellant obtained leave to appeal from the Court to consider whether the learned Judge had acted with jurisdiction in transferrieg the complaint to the High Court before it was decided to issue the summons to the accused. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Court in Captain Gohar Ayu5's case (1). It was further urged that the personal position of the parties in a criminal case did not constitute a valid ground for its withdrawal from the subordinate Court and trial by the High Court on the original, side.
6. Since leave to appeal was obtained, the respondent has assumed the office of the Ambassador of Pakistan in U. K. And the appellant has been appointed Minister of Interior in the Federal Government of Pakistan. By this change, neither the complainant nor the accused appear to be interested any more in the decision of the appeal.
7. ' In the facts of the case, it will serve no useful purpose to embark upon determination of the questions of law raised in the order granting leave to appeal. Indeed it is likely that the complaint has since been abandoned by the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.