Summoning of accused

2026 YLR 790 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 489-FCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 204 & 561-ACheating, foregery and dishonoring of chequeQuashing of proceedingsPrivate complaintSummoning of accusedPre-conditions

Petitioner/accused assailed notice issued by Trial Court, whereby petitioner/accused was summoned to face trial in private complaint filed by respondent/complainant

Validity

In order to constitute offence, complainant was to disclose existence of both basic ingredients namely unlawful act "actus rea" and criminal intent "mens rea" on the part of petitioner/accused

Before issuing process, the Court was under obligation to satisfy itself for the purpose of ascertaining truth or falsehood of respondent/complaint as to the existence or non-existence of sufficient grounds to issue process against petitioner/accused

Main object of dealing with examination of complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C was to protect public from false, frivolous and vexatious complaints filed against them

Trial Court could not proceed to issue process against accused until and unless, it was satisfied that prima facie case had been made out against those who were accused of alleged criminal offence

Respondent/ complainant filed complaint as counterblast, who himself was guilty of offence for which a separate criminal case had already been registered against him and after remaining unsuccessful at all forums to achieve his nefarious designs, he filed private complaint against petitioner/accused who was pressing hard since long on the basis of criminality of respondent/complainant

High Court set aside orders passed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court as the same were in sheer violation of law

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PLD 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 364-A & 376Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Chaps.XIV, XV, [Ss.154-199-B], Ss.190 & 193Abduction and rapeAppreciation of evidenceSummoning of accusedBenefit of doubtAccused was not nominated in FIR and the one who was duly nominated was acquitted

Accused was summoned under S.193 Cr.P.C. by Trial Court and after framing of charge he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

No incriminating evidence was collected against accused during course of investigation nor witnesses had deposed against him

No material was available against accused but charge was framed against him

During whole process of investigation and cognizance was taken into the matter by Court of law on the basis of material against co-accused who was acquitted

Allegedly only one person was involved in commission of offence, therefore, substitution of said single person with accused was against the Chaps. XIV & XV [Ss.154-199-B] of Cr.P.C.

Trial Court was not competent to issue notice for joining accused in the case

Joining of accused in the trial and passing of judgment by Trial Court was erroneous conclusion

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2018 MLD 26 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 439, 200 & 204Private complaintSummoning of accusedProsecution case was that the daughter of respondent No. 2 found dead in her MadrassaFIR was lodged under S. 302 Penal Code, 1860 on the complaint of respondent No. 2No one was nominated as accused in the said FIR

Police submitted report before the Judicial Magistrate, who passed order for cancellation of FIR on the basis of police report

Respondent filed private complaint, in which after preliminary inquiry, it was concluded that no case was made out and the same was dismissed accordingly

Respondent No. 2 filed another complaint, in which matter was entrusted to Judicial Magistrate to conduct inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and submitted a report

Trial court, seized of matter, summoned the accused in private complaint

Validity

Record showed that trial court while passing the impugned order , issued summons to the accused persons without discussing and appreciating the inquiry report furnished by the Judicial Magistrate

Mere mentioning of the fact in the impugned order that the same had been taken into account did not satisfy the requirements of S. 202, Cr.P.C.

In such circumstances, criminal revision petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order

Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, which would decide the same afresh.

2018 PLD 385 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5 & 10Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 202Solemnizing a child marriageSummoning of accusedProcedure

Plea of accused that under S. 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, it was mandatory for the Trial Court to have conducted a preliminary inquiry under S. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but in the present case said requirement was ignored and instead the accused were summoned mechanically without recording statement of the complainant

Validity

Purpose of inquiry under S. 202, Cr.P.C was to see as to whether sufficient material was available to put the accused on trial

Admittedly the Nikahnama in the present case and its veracity had never been disputed at any stage which showed the age of the bridegroom as less than 18 years making the complaint sufficiently credible for summoning the accused

Nikahnama sufficiently establish a prima facie case against accused persons

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2017 PCrLJ 1083 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 193Cognizance of offences by Court of SessionSummoning of accusedPrinciple

If incriminating evidence was available on record of case or material implicating accused was brought on record, accused could be summoned under S. 193, Cr.P.C.

2017 MLD 1306 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.173, 204 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.342, 351, 354, 420, 498-A, 506(2), 148, 149 & 34Inherent powers of High CourtCancellation of caseTrial Court, jurisdiction ofSummoning of accused

Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court cancelling the case on the basis of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. filed by Investigating Officer

Validity

Trial Court was bound to apply its judicial mind to material placed before it and if Trial Court was of the view that opinion expressed by Investigating Officer in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was just and appropriate, the Court was fully competent to accept the report and dispose of the case as proposed by Investigating Officer

Complainant nominated accused persons in FIR, specific role was also assigned against accused persons and version of complainant was also supported by prosecution witnesses

Offence was serious and heinous but Trial Court did not consider the point of view of complainant in its order

Sufficient evidence to take cognizance of offence was on record and at such stage guilt or innocence of accused could not be decided for which evidence was to be recorded

High Court directed the Trial Court to issue process against accused persons and set aside the order cancelling the case

Application was allowed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 998 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 420, 467, 468 & 471Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200, 204 & 561-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, will etc. forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Quashing of proceedings

Complaint case

Challan case

Trial

Procedure

Summoning of accused

Petitioner sought quashing of process issued by Trial Court summoning the petitioner to face trial in private complaint

Validity

High Court while exercising jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. or Art. 199 of the Constitution could not embark upon to examine adequacy or inadequacy of evidence

When same party lodging FIR had also instituted a private complaint containing same allegations against the same set of accused persons then the proper course for a Trial Court to follow was to hold a trial in complaint case first while keeping Challan case dormant awaiting fate of trial in complaint case

Trial Court acted with circumspection and had exercised power with utmost care and caution before passing an order for the process to be issued

No legal infirmity was pointed out so as to require interference with concurrent findings

Remedies were available to petitioner and it was appropriate for him to avail the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.173 & 204Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A (i)/337-F (iii) / 354/148/ 149Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilitySummoning of accusedJudicial/ administrative orderDetermination

Petitioner was accused of Shajjah-i-khafifah, Mutafahimah, assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty and rioting armed with deadly weapon

After investigation, police recommended cancellation of case but Magistrate disagreed with the report and summoned accused to face trial

Validity

While dealing with cancellation report submitted by police, Magistrate acted in his administrative capacity and order passed by him while agreeing or concurring with cancellation report was an executive order

Magistrate, if had disagreed with cancellation report and directed police to file report under S.173, Cr.P.C. on prescribed form, directed submission of calendar of witnesses or directed investigation agency for further investigation into the matter, all such order would be the acts performed by Magistrate in his administrative capacity and could be questioned only though Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

While dealing with cancellation report, when Magistrate disagreed with cancellation report and by the same had ordered summoning of accused persons to face trial, then his first step of disagreeing with cancellation report was administrative in nature and the same would merge in his simultaneous order regarding summoning of accused passed under S.204, Cr.P.C., which was squarely a judicial order

Due to merger of disagreeing order of Magistrate into ultimate and simultaneous order of summoning of accused, the entire exercise by Magistrate would become judicial action

Such kind of order could be assailed through criminal revision and not under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 2644 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.18(a)(c)(g) & 32Summoning of accusedAccountability Court, jurisdiction of

Appellants were not arrayed as accused in Reference filed by National Accountability Bureau but Accountability Court summoned them as accused to face trial

Validity

No inquiry or investigation was ever conducted/initiated against appellants by National Accountability Bureau and in References/Supplementary References, filed by National Accountability Bureau after inquiry and investigation and names of appellants did not find place

Accountability Court had no power to either include new persons in list of accused or conduct its own investigation or substitute its own opinion with that of investigating officer authorized under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Before issuing non-bailable warrants against appellants no notices were issued by Accountability Court and the same was against principles of natural justice

When law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other manner

High Court set aside orders passed by Accountability Court, as the same were contrary to provisions of Ss.18(a), (c) and (g) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, resultantly proceedings against appellant were quashed

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.