MUHAMMAD WAKEEL vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADAR, PATTOKI, DISTRICT KASUR and 2 others
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner seeking the quashment of a criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No. 395 dated 12-11-1996 under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Pattoki. The core legal question involves whether a criminal case registered in 1996, wherein the petitioner was found guilty during investigation but is not named in the F.I.R., should be quashed by the High Court. The court held that it would not comment on the veracity of the averments to avoid prejudicing either side and disposed of the petition. The key principle laid down is that where a challan has been submitted in the trial court, the appropriate remedy for an accused seeking premature termination of proceedings is to approach the trial court by moving an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for consideration and expeditious decision within a specified timeframe.
- Can an accused seek quashment of a criminal case on the ground that he is not named in the F.I.R. and the case is old?
- Whether the High Court should comment on the veracity of averments in a quashment petition to avoid prejudicing the trial?
- Is an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an appropriate remedy when a challan has been submitted in the trial court?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition, petitioner has sought quashment of a case registered vide F.I.R. No,395, dated 12-11-1996 under section 365, P.P.C. With Police Station, Saddar Pattoki on the ground that the case is old; that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And that there is no incriminating evidence to warrant conviction of the petitioner.
2. Comments submitted by the S.H.O. Are to the effect that during investigation, petitioner was found guilty.
3. I would not like to comment on the veracity of the averments made in the petition lest it may prejudice the case of either side. F.I.R. Was registered as far back as November, 1996 and the matter is still hanging on. In the afore-referred circumstances and in view of the contention raised by petitioner's learned counsel, I am persuaded to dispose of this petition with the observation that if the challan has already been submitted in the trial Court, petitioner may move an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And the learned trial Court shall decide the same within a month of its presentation.