MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ALI ABBAS, CIVIL JUDGE, TEHSIL MANKERA, DISTRICT
This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the quashment of orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, whereby the petitioner, who was declared innocent during police investigation, was summoned to face trial in an F.I.R. registered under sections 379 and 411 read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions involve whether an accused declared innocent by the police can be summoned by the magistrate, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed based on a police finding of innocence and alleged mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that police findings of innocence are not binding on courts and that a trial court is competent to summon and try an accused based on available material, providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and lead rebuttal evidence. The court laid down the principle that police exoneration does not bar a magistrate from summoning an accused to face trial, and questions of mala fides and innocence must be determined during the trial after recording evidence rather than through quashment proceedings.
- Whether police findings of innocence are binding upon the trial court while deciding to summon an accused?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the accused was declared innocent by the police?
- Does section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the lodging of an F.I.R. exclusively to an aggrieved and competent person?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 379, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 411, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks quashment of order, dated 27-6-2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and order passed in criminal revision, dated 22- 8-2002, by learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith others was nominated accused in case F.I.R. No,145 of 2000, dated 26-11-2000 under sections 379/411 read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (E.O.H.), Ordinance No, VI of 1979 registered at Police Station Mankera, District Bhakkar. During the investigation the petitioner alongwith his two co-accused was declared innocent and the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted against the other accused.
According to the learned counsel for petitioner the case is pending for the last more than one year and the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was declared innocent. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of Muhammad Ramzan has passed the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been directed to face the trial. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed revision petition which was also dismissed. Hence this petition.
2-A. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Has been lodged by incompetent person and while taking in view the conduct of petitioner that he donated 2 Kanals of land to the school it cannot be accepted that the petitioner has committed the theft from that school. It is further contended that the complainant has lodged the F.I.R.. Due to enmity against the petitioner as four criminal cases were got registered previous to involvement of petitioner in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner who was declared innocent could not be summoned to fact the trial.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner at length and perused the impugned orders and also the contents of this petition. The grounds taken by the learned counsel for petitioner for quashment of the proceedings in the criminal trial are not sufficient to exercise powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. There is no where mentioned in the provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. That the F.I.R. Could be lodged by the aggrieved and competent persons. Similarly the finding of the police about the petitioner is not binding upon the Courts and it is not relevant for the decision, in the criminal case. So, the contention that the case was registered with mala fide intention cannot be considered for quashment of the proceeding in a slipshod manner without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner will have an opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, if produced before the trial Court. The trial.Court can come to a definite conclusion only after recording the evidence of prosecution and petitioner can also prove his innocence before the trial Court by producing his evidence in rebuttal of the charges. In this view of the mater this petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limine.