1971 P Cr (PLP)

Ghulam Qadir v. The State and another 1968 P Cr. L J 1760 ; Ms. S. Khawaja v. The State P L D 1965 S C 287 ; Fazalur Rehman v, Muhammad Yamin and 2 others P L D 1964 Kar, 600; Umar Khan v. The State and another P L D 1962 Kar. 873 ; Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others P L D 1967 S C 317 and Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and .others P L D 1967 S C 354 ref. Date of hearing : 14th October 1970. On the 16th' of June 1969, at 10‑15 p.m. a case under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. etc. was registered at Police Station Qila Gujar Singh, Lahore at the instance of one Mst. Shamim Durrani, who did not claim to be an eye‑witness of the occurrence which resulted in the death of one Mushtaq and incised injuries to Nur Muhammad P: V.

2. The occurrence allegedly took place in front of the house of Major Ata Muhammad petitioner No.

1. As a result of police investigation, the three petitioners, namely, Major Ata Muhammad, Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad, Saeed, were sent up and are now facing inquiry in the Court of the committing Magistrate. They have filed this petition for quashing of inquiry proceedings, which have lingered on for more than a year on the ground that not a single witness bas inculpated them and as such any further continuation of the inquiry proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. A perusal of the record bears out to the factual correctness of this position inasmuch as even Nur Muhammad P. W.

2. An injured companion of the deceased; has not named any of the petitioners or for that matter any other person as the assailant being responsible for the death of his companion Mushtaq and for causing injuries to him. Likewise the order so‑called eye‑witnesses, namely, Zakir Hussain P. W. 3, Salim Masih P. W. 4, Norman Godfrey P. W. 6, Alaud Din Butt P. W. 7 and Muhammad Shafi P. W. 8, have not said a word to inculpate the petitioner

2. A perusal of the ‑record shows that the learned A. P. P. has closed the case for the prosecution on the 18‑7‑1970, and yet it appears that the learned committing Magistrate is insisting on examination of a doctor who has not appeared so far.

3. The question that arises .for determination of the case, however, is as to. whether in the circumstances where sufficient grounds for the commitment of the P. Ws. for trial, are definitely not available, the matter should be left to the discretion of the Inquiry Magistrate to pass an order of discharge or alternatively that of commitment, if he is so inclined, or whether this Court, should interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, :Cr. ,P. C. and quash the proceedings, whose con tinuation in the aforesaid circumstances would be merely a futile exercise conflicting authorities have been pressed into service by toe learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Ghulam Qadir v. The State and another (1968 P Cr. L J 1760), Ms. S. Khawaja v. The State (P L D 1965 S C 287), Fazalur Rahman v. Muhammad Yamin and 2 others (P L D 1964 Kar. 600) and Umar Khan v. The State and another (P L D 1962 Kar; 873). For the contrary view, learned counsel for the State places reliance on Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others (P L D 1967 S C 317) and Paid Haqnawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others (P L‑D 1967 S C 354).

4. Having considered the facts of the instant case in the light of the above authorities, I am of the view that normally this Court should stay its hands in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. when its interference would amount to stifling or interrupting the normal course of criminal pro ceedings, being conducted in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, it would be rather premature to presume that the learned committing Magistrate shall commit the petitioners for trial by reading into the evidence or spelling out grounds for commitment which are not otherwise be sufficient in the legal sense of the term. Since, however, after the close of the prosecu tion case by the learned A. P. P. which does not reveal anything incriminating against the petitioners, much less the existence of reasonable grounds for their commitment, the learned Magistrate has still thought it proper to insist on the examination of the doctor which cannot in the least improve upon the case of the prosecution; I am clearly, of the view that any further continua tion of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I allow this petition. The proceed ings, are quashed with the result that the petitioners stand discharged. Petition allowed.