1992 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 237/0 of 1988, decided on 24th April, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑‑‑Offences Against Properties (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings ‑‑‑F.I.R. lodged by complainant was cancelled after due investigation of case by police‑‑ Complainant filed private complaint on which accused were summoned after due process of law‑‑‑Accused might approach Trial Court under S.265‑K, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Court was directed to decide averments made by accused expeditiously‑‑‑Earlier order of Trial Court dismissing complaint for non prosecution was bad in law and without jurisdiction. Ch. Inayatullah Cheema for Petitioner. The petitioners are facing trial for offences under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Article 14 of the Offences Against Properties (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. This quashment petition has been moved under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. with the assertions that earlier, respondent No.1 had got a case registered with the concerned police station for the same offence but the police after thorough investigation got the case cancelled being false. Subsequently, the respondent on the same allegation filed a complaint. The learned Court vide its order dated 12‑6‑1987 summoned the respondent.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the filing of the complaint is mala fide with a view to humiliate and disgrace the petitioners, otherwise the police after thorough investigation had come to the conclusion that no offence, as asserted by the respondent, was committed. Argues that a bare reading of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Court would indicate that no cognizable offence was committed, therefore, if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Submitted that at one stage nobody appeared, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. Later on the respondent filed an application, and the complaint was restored. According to him, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. under which proceedings could be restored.

3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. As far as the summoning of the petitioners is concerned, 1 do not think any exception to it can be taken because the trial Court had observed all the formalities, and thereafter decided to summon the petitioners. As far as the question of dismissing the complaint for non‑prosecution is concerned, it is pointed out that there is no provision empowering the Court of Session to A dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution. Therefore, the earlier order as such was bad in law and without jurisdiction. If the petitioners feel that no case can possibly be made out against them on the basis of averments, they may file a petition under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, who, after hearing both the sides, shall decide the same expeditiously. With these I observations, the petition is disposed of. SA./M‑2970/L Order accordingly.