2002 PLP 1549 (MLD)

Applicant Ali Akbar son of Pir Muhammad is seeking quashment of proceedings of F. I. R. No.90 of 2000. The F.I.R. was lodged by complainant S.I. P. Syed Anwar Hussain, Police Station Daro on behalf of the State on 6‑8‑2000, stating therein that he alongwith staff members. when patrolling, received spy information that some criminals are available in Ottaq in Belo Uthi of famous Patharidar Ali Akbar Bhambhro. who used to help the criminals. On such information, the complainant reached the pointed place and found two persons were sitting and on seeing the police party they ran away towards the Jungle of Bela and one person, namely, Ali Akbar was apprehended by police, after arrest, his personal search was made and secured from front pocket of his shirt one purse containing his NIC (duplicate) and one comb. On the torch light, they saw in the Otaq that there were two cots, upon which beds were lying, two plates of meal (Mani‑e‑Joon Chabiayoon), one pot of curry containing some curry and some fresh pieces of meal were lying. All the aforementioned articles were taken into custody and the name of the applicant was inquired, who disclosed his name as Ali Akbar son of Pir Muhammad and thereafter a case under section 216‑A, P.P.C, read with section 21 (ii), Hudood Ordinance was registered against the applicant. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is no evidence with prosecution to prove that the present applicant is criminal or provides the criminals shelters or receives any weapon from them, or supplies them any arm. The articles recovered do not connect the applicant with the commission of the offence, where it is established that the applicant is notorious, harbour criminals or notorious dacoits and no offence has been made out by the prosecution and thus the proceedings pending before the Civil Judge and F.C.M. amount to abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Zahid Hussain v. The State reported to 1990 PCr LJ 1209. On the other hand Mr. Kazi Wali Mohammad, learned State Counsel has raised no objection to the quashment of proceedings and has contended that there is nothing to suggest that the applicant is notorious, harbour, criminal or notorious dacoit or he supplies arms and gives shelters to the criminals. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available with the record. Admittedly, the police have secured from front pocket of his shirt one purse containing his NIC (duplicate) and one comb. On the torch light, they saw in the Otaq that there were two cots, upon which beds were lying, two plates of meal (Mani‑e‑joon Chabiayoon). One pot of curry containing some curry and some fresh pieces of meal were lying and these articles do not constitute any offence, whereby it is established l that the present applicant has committed an offence under section 216‑A, P.P.C. read with section 21 (ii) of the Hudood Ordinance. There is no material available with the prosecution to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant has moved this Court straightaway. In this respect reliance can be placed on the case of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others reported in 2000 SCMR 122 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:‑‑ "Ss.561‑A, 249‑A & 265‑K‑‑"Inh t jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Quashing of proceedings" High Court in exceptional case can exercise jurisdiction under, S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C. without waiting for Trial Court to pass orders under S. 249‑A or 265‑K, Cr.P.C. if the facts of the case so warrant‑‑‑Main consideration to be kept in view would be whether the continuance of the proceedings before the trial forum would be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not‑‑‑If on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue with the trial. " As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that there is no bar to move straightaway to this Court under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. I am of the considered view that on the face of it, no offence is made out in view of the case of Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others reported in 2000 SCMR 122 and accordingly. F.I.R. pending before the F.C.M. and Civil Judge, Thatta stands quashed. In result this Criminal Revision No.330 of 2000 is allowed. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety stand discharged. H.B.T./A‑324/K