1988 P Cr (PLP)

S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/149--Quashing of proceedings--Abuse of process of Court--Complaint case--Court issuing process after preliminary inquiry--Court not proceeding further after finding a prima facie case--Accusations made in complaint or statements of witnesses disclosing prima facie case--Accusations needed to be tested at trial--Interference at this stage, held, would amount to stifling of prosecution--Process of Court had not been abused Court not required under law to hear accused before issuance of process- Quashing of proceedings refused in circumstances. Faizanul Haq for Petitioners. On a private complaint filed by the Pir Saleem s/o Pir Sultan Ahmad Sarhandi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu after preliminary enquiry has found a prima facie case existing against the three applicants and their co-accused under section 307 read with section 149, P.P.C. and ordered issuance of bailable warrants against them. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashment of the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The facts of the case are that, on 4-11-1985 the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Thariri Mohanat, District Dadu alleging that at about 23-00 hours he and Ghulam Mustafa had been attacked with fire-arms by the applicants as a result of which they sustained injuries. After conducting investigation in the case the D.S.P. and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mehar found the case to be false arid fit for disposal under 'B' class. However, the complainant filed a private complaint before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Dadu who after preliminary enquiry found a prima facie case against the applicants and ordered issuance of process as pointed out above. Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Counsel for the applicant now contends that the case against the applicants is false and therefore, the proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed. For this he has mainly relied upon the investigation report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mehar, copy of which has been filed along with the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel has also taken exception to the fact that the applicants were not heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before issuance of process against them. It has also been contended by him that the injuries according to the medical report are simple in nature and therefore, no case has been made out against the applicants under section 307, P. P. C. None of these arguments merits consideration. Proceedings can be quashed if there is something on the record to indicate that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose an offence at all against the applicants or that from the evidence recorded by the Court no offence is disclosed. In such event the process of the Court can be said to have been abused. Admittedly the learned Sessions Court has not proceeded in the case further after finding a prima facie case against the applicant. It is not the case of the applicants that the accusation made in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 208, Cr.P.C. do not disclose a prima facie case against the applicants. These allegations therefore, require to be tested in the light of the evidence and the stage has not yet reached when this Court can hold that pendency of proceedings against the applicants tantamounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Interference at this stage of the case would amount to stifling the prosecution. The arguments that the applicants were not given opportunity of hearing before issuance of process against them orb that the medical evidence discloses simple injuries received by the complainant party are misconceived, as the learned Sessions Court was not required under the law to hear the applicants before issuance of process against them. Similarly, in a case under section 307, P.P.C. the nature of injuries caused to the complainant party is immaterial. This application is therefore, premature and the same is dismissed in limine. S. A./S-162/K Application dismissed.