KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate, following the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a subsequent revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner argued that as a non-Muslim, he possessed a constitutional right to preach his beliefs, contending that no offence had been committed. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the issues raised required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is inappropriate for a quashment application. The Court held that the findings of the Federal Shariat Court remain binding and that the issues raised by the petitioner necessitated a full trial and evidence appraisal, which could not be adjudicated in the current proceedings. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the lower courts' orders, the Court dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, emphasizing that the prosecution must produce its evidence to allow for a proper determination of the case.
- Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction when the issues raised require a deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Are the findings of the Federal Shariat Court binding on all other courts in Pakistan?
- Is a quashment application the appropriate stage to determine the merits of a defense involving constitutional rights?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4-Q, 5-Q, 6-Q and 7-Q of 1993 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. This quashment application has been filed by the petitioner in the instant case against the proceedings pending, before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner had filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed. He filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed. Against the said two orders the petitioner has approached this Court. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition is that it is the constitutional right of the petitioner in spite of the fact that he has been declared non-Muslim in the constitution to preach in the oneness of the God and into truthfulness of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). He has also referred PLD 1985 Federal Shariat Court 8 Mujeeb-ur-Rehman v. Federal Government and has referred to page 89 paragraph 2 of the said judgment. He has also referred 1993 SCM R 1718 and he has also read before me page 1755 and 175G. He submits that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner.
2-A. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need deeper appreciation of the evidence which cannot be gone into the present miscellaneous application for quashment of the application.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a great length and have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman the said petitioner went to file an appeal before the learned Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court against the judgment of Federal Shariat Court but withdrew the same for the reasons best known to him. In the judgment rendered in 1993 SCM R 1718 Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court has held that the findings of the Federal Shariat Court are binding on all the Courts and the judgment given by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court still holds the field. In the instant case the complainant has been examined as a witness and three other witnesses are still to be examined.
The petitioner's application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. A revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be gone into after recording of the evidence and need deeper appreciation/appraisal of evidence which cannot be gone into in the present quashment application.
4. For the reasons stated above this petition is dismissed, However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months. Prosecution is also directed to produce its evidence. With these observations this petition is dismissed.