RAB DINO vs S.D.M. and others
This application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated under Sections 110/55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the applicant by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rohri. The core legal question was whether the police report, which alleged that the applicant was a habitual thief, a 'badmash', and a public terror, provided sufficient grounds to sustain proceedings under the preventive sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the allegations in the police report were vague, general, and lacked specific material evidence to substantiate the claims of habitual criminality or public terror. The Court further observed that a single prior case under the Gambling Act was irrelevant to the requirements of Section 110. Consequently, the Court ruled that the initiation of these proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law. The key principle laid down is that preventive proceedings under Section 110 cannot be initiated based on vague, unsubstantiated police reports lacking specific evidence of habitual criminal conduct or public terror.
- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based on vague and general allegations in a police report?
- Does a single prior conviction under the Gambling Act constitute sufficient grounds for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the initiation of preventive proceedings without specific material evidence considered an abuse of the process of law?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 55, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5-A, Gambling Act
1. ' This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is directed against the proceedings under sections 110/55, Cr.P.C. Started in the Court of S.D.M., Rohri on the report of S.H.O. Of Police Station Rohri.
2. It is stated in the report that the applicant is in habit of committing theft and is notorious thief and he is also Badmash (Scoundrel) and he retains the weapons without licence and he is terror in the public and he also harbours the notorious dacoits and on account of his fear there is no one to come forward to depose against him.
2. It has been rightly pointed out that the allegations in the report are not only vague but of general nature and they do not fall within the purview of section 110, Cr.P.C. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant is by habit of thief or retains the stolen property and harbours the notorious dacoits.
3. There is also nothing to suggest that the applicant is terror in the public and the persons of locality where the applicant resides do not come forward to depose against him. The report also reveals that one case had been cited being Crime No,77 of 2000 under section 5-A, Gambling Act and general complaint from the public. The case cited being Crime No,77 of 2000 under section 5-A, Gambling Act has no connection or relevancy with section under section 110, Cr.P.C. Merely because the person is challaned in one case cannot be basis for being prosecuted under sections 110/55, Cr.P.C.
4. ' I have also examined the record placed before me. There is nothing except that the case cited as mentioned above and there is no material to connect the applicant that he is in habit of stolen property or harbouring the dacoits. Even there is nothing on record that the applicant is terror in public as the police have failed to examine the person from the locality from where the applicant hails. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited a case of Sodho v. The State reported in 1991 PCr.LJ 340. He has also cited a case of Momin Khan Afridi v. The State reported in 1991 PCr.LJ 1325 in support of his contention. The witnesses cited in the report is only S. H .O. Himself. As already held in the abovementioned decision of this Court no action can be taken on basis of the report under sections 110/55, Cr.P.C. Against the present applicant.
5. ' The proceedings were then started and such pendency of the proceedings amount to abuse of process of law and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicant' in the Court of S.D.M.
6. Rohri are quashed.