PCRLJ 1983

1983 P Cr (PLP)

KARAMAT HUSSAIN-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Non-applicant

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court (A J & K)
Decided Date
1983-March-2
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court (A J & K)
Bench Members N/A
Parties KARAMAT HUSSAIN-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Non-applicant
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (A J & K) bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (KARAMAT HUSSAIN-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Non-applicant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 561-A and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 211-Quashment of proceedings-Application to Government or its Chief Secretary for departmental action against officer for his misconduct not disclosing any offence on his part, held, does not constitute criminal proceeding or a false charge of offence within meaning of S. 211, Penal Code Proceedings quashed in circumstances of case.

Judgment & Decree

This is an application for transfer of a case under section 211, P. C. pending in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad during the course of which no order for disposal of the same, one way or the other in respect of its transfer or otherwise was necessitated as the original case had to be looked at from another aspect in exercise of powers vested in me under sections 439 and 561-A, Cr. P. C. The aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner was instituted by the Police Muzaffhrabad on the direction of Secretary, Services. This was so done as an application containing certain allegations was made to the Chief Secretary of the Government against Mr. Abdul Haq Akhtar, Deputy Secretary which on departmental inquiries were found baseless and frivolous by the inquiry officers. These allegations against the Deputy Secretary do not disclose any offence. They simply relate to his acts, which in view o f Code of Conduct, if proved could have amounted to misconduct on the part of the officer. Section 211, P. C. provides for a false charge of offence made with intent to cause injury to a person, that is to say:- Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished .. From the above description of section 211, P. C., it is evident that criminal proceeding means a proceeding which lies under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal Court or a false charge of offence is made to the police for commission of a certain cognizable offence so as to be registered under section 154, Cr. P. C. and investigation to commence thereof under section 156, Cr. P. C. and further to be conducted as provided in the sections hereinafter vide Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code concerning the information to the police and their powers to investigate. These are the only functionaries in authority before whom a false matter is taken by the offender liable to punishment under section 211, P. C. Nothing of the two is found in the case in hand. An application to the Government or its Chief Secretary for a departmental action against an officer for some, of his acts amounting to misconduct and not disclosing any offence on his part, does not constitute criminal proceeding or a false charge of offence within the meaning of section 211, P. C. From the above, it all follows that a charge being false must be contained in a complaint to the Magistrate or say a criminal Court of competent jurisdiction or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police and the criminal law is thus set in motion against a defined person. There was no criminal proceeding or a false charge against Mr. Abdul Haq Akhtar, Deputy Secretary, instituted before a criminal Court or made to the police by the petitioner. . That being so, the offence under section 211, P. C. cannot be establish ed against the petitioner by the prosecution because no such offence was committed by the accused-petitioner whom I acquit of the charge wrongly framed by the police against him on quashment of proceedings including the very complaint. The complaint before the Magistrate stands dismissed. Petition accepted.