KHASTA KHAN And Others vs The STATE
This petition arises from the dismissal of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 440 of 1992 by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, for non-prosecution, which was filed by the petitioners for the quashment of proceedings in case F.I.R. No. 251/87 registered under sections 447 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal miscellaneous application for non-prosecution due to the continuous absence of the petitioners and their counsel. The Supreme Court held that there was no legal bar to the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application for non-prosecution when the petitioners failed to enter an appearance on multiple consecutive dates of hearing. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that courts possess the inherent power to dismiss criminal miscellaneous applications for non-prosecution in the face of persistent default and unjustified absence by the moving party.
- Can a criminal miscellaneous application be dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's dismissal of a quashment petition due to persistent non-appearance?
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition arises from the facts that Khasta Khan and three others, the petitioners, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.440 of 1992 in the High Court of Sind, Karachi for quashment of proceedings in case F.I.R. No.251/87 P.S. Saddar, Karachi under section 447/34, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of S.D.M./Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Karachi. This application was dismissed by the High Court on 18-7-1994- for non-prosecution. The application filed by the petitioners for recalling the order of the dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 440/1992 was dismissed by the High Court on 22-8-1994. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. He has failed to justify his absence on the date of hearing before the High Court. The High Court order will show that none from the petitioners' side had entered appearance before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 440/92 on three previous dates also. This being the position, we are convinced that there was no option for the High Court but to dismiss the application for non-prosecution. There is no legal bar for the dismissal of a Criminal Miscellaneous application for non prosecution.
Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused, and the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.