1986 PLP 303 (SCMR)
MARGHOOB ALAM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAMAS DIN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 303 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul, JJ |
| Parties | MARGHOOB ALAM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAMAS DIN and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 303 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 303 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Gul, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 303 (SCMR) (MARGHOOB ALAM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SHAMAS DIN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid with Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from an Order of the Lahore High Court, made on 25‑3‑1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21/Q of 1973). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S . 406/420/468‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Facts alleged in complaint prima facie disclosing commission of criminal offence‑‑Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings against accused, held, unexceptionable in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Powers under S. 561‑A, Criminal Procedure Code, held, were intended to prevent abuse of process of Court but not to stii7e prosecution. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court, by its order, dated 25‑3‑1975, to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No. 1 under sections 406/420 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The main ground urged in support of the petitioners, application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was that the facts alleged in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. After perusing the complaint in question the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that, in his view, the facts alleged therein did disclose a prima facie offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a business agreement between the parties and the dispute is in fact of a civil nature. He contends that the respondent has also initiated proceedings by way of a civil suit, and, therefore, the criminal prosecution initiated by him amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. We have perused the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners, and we find that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in observing that the facts alleged do prima facie disclose the commission of criminal offence. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the proceedings. Powers under section 561‑A are intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, but not to stifle prosecution. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.