2019 PLP 2507 (YLR)
NAVEDD-UL-LAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 2507 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | NAVEDD-UL-LAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 2507 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 2507 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 2507 (YLR) (NAVEDD-UL-LAIL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Hussain for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate General for the State.
- 3. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the FIR was registered on the direction of the learned justice of the peace, which judgment/ order was passed, keeping in view the spirit and logic of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A or section 265-K, Cr.P.C., hence the petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A, 561-A, 249-A & 265-K
Ex-officio Justice of Peace
Opportunity of hearing to earmarked accused
Inherent powers of Chief Court
Scope
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR lodged on the order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace
Plea of petitioner was that Ex-officio Justice of Peace had ordered for registration of FIR without providing him an opportunity of hearing
Held; hearing of an earmarked accused was not mandatory, while passing a judgment/order under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.
Petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an application under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Powers conferred on Chief Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. were neither additional nor alternate
Said power was sparingly exercised in very rare and exceptional circumstances
Petitioner having failed to make out a case for exercise of inherent powers in his favour, petition was dismissed. Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The instant Cr. Misc. No.92/2019 has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No.135/2018 under sections 406/420, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Gilgit on the direction of learned justice of the peace Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 15-11-2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the direction of the learned justice of the peace, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is not only illegal but also unwarranted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from bare reading of FIR, no cognizable offence is made out and the trial of the case will result into acquittal. No useful purpose will be served if the FIR is allowed to remain in field.
3. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the FIR was registered on the direction of the learned justice of the peace, which judgment/ order was passed, keeping in view the spirit and logic of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A or section 265-K, Cr.P.C., hence the petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided the opportunity of hearing is not tenable as the hearing of an earmarked accused is not mandatory, while passing a judgment/order under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or section 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case may be. The powers conferred upon Chief Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. or neither additional nor alternate. These powers are sparingly exercised in very rare and exceptional circumstances. The petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise of the inherent powers in his favour.
5. The petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly. SA/53/GB Petition dismissed.