Quashing of criminal proceedings

2025 PLD 53 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A, 249-A & 265-KInherent power of High CourtScope and principlesQuashing of criminal proceedings

High Court can quash a judicial proceeding pending before any subordinate court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of the process of that court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice

Expression "abuse of process" used under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., connotes an unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings or process which also includes the presence of ulterior motives for activating the process for unjustified arrest or groundless criminal prosecution

At the same time, this inherent jurisdiction cannot be deemed to be an alternative jurisdiction or additional jurisdiction and cannot be exploited to disrupt or impede the procedural law on the basis of presumptive findings or hyper-technicalities

Instead, it is intended to protect and safeguard the interests of justice and to redress grievances of aggrieved persons, for which no other procedure or remedy is provided in the Cr.P.C

Remedy provided under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., cannot be construed as an alternate remedy or substitute for an express remedy provided under Section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case may

Therefore, the ordinary remedy provided under the law cannot be bypassed or circumvented.

2022 CLD 128 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8, 9 & 20Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018, R. 5Quashing of criminal proceedingsWilful default, investigation ofDetermination of liability

Petitioners availed finance facility but due to their failure to repay within time, respondent Bank filed complaint with Federal Investigation Agency to investigation offence of wilful default

Plea raised by petitioners was that before determination of liability under civil law, criminal proceedings of wilful default could not be initiated

Validity

Federal Investigation Agency was empowered under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018, to investigate complaints filed by financial institutions in the matters of wilful default in adjustment of any financial liability

Offence of wilful default under S. 20(8) & (9) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a cognizable and non-bailable in nature and could be tried by Banking Court constituted under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Jurisdiction of Federal Investigation Agency was not precluded from conducting inquiry on complaint filed by respondent Bank

Complaint filed by respondent Bank was pre-mature as the same was filed prior to fixation of civil default

High Court quashed the complaint as suit for recovery of finance was pending before High Court

Respondent Bank could file fresh complaint after the suit was decided and liability of default was fixed against petitioners and only then Federal Investigation Agency was empowered under R. 5 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018 to conduct inquiry on the complaint

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 442 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 561-AInherent powers of High CourtQuashing of criminal proceedingsScope

Determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused depends on totality of facts and circumstances revealed during the trial and when such a stage had not reached, application of quashing of proceedings was liable to be rejected.

2020 PCrLJ 402 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23, 32 & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-AQuashing of criminal proceedingsSale of spurious and substandard drugOffences by companiesLiability of distributorNo possibility of convictionScope

Drug Inspector recovered substandard drug from a medical store, who produced purchase bill issued by manufacturer/Agents

Sale invoice revealed that the substandard drug was sold to the petitioners by the manufacturer

Admittedly, the substandard drug was manufactured by a private limited company, which was a person in its own rights within the meaning of Ss. 23, 32 & 34 of Drugs Act, 1976

No prosecution was launched against the company who had manufactured the seized drug

Petitioners, in the absence of company, its directors, agents, employers and warrantors, could not be prosecuted as the liability of the manufacturer of the drug and his agent for distribution thereof was co-extensive under S. 32(3) of Drugs Act, 1976

Petitioners were not manufacturers of the seized drug nor were the agents or warrantors of the manufacturer for distribution thereof; they could not be held liable for contravention of S. 23 of Drugs Act, 1976

Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there was no possibility of conviction even if the remaining prosecution witnesses were also examined

Proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Drug Court were quashed and they were acquitted of the charge.

2018 CLD 1273 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of criminal proceedingsPrinciple

High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution has no jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of facts warranting recording of evidence

If, prima facie, an offence is made out, the normal course of trial before Trial Court cannot be allowed to be deflected except in presence of very exceptional circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 1088 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 380Theft in dwelling houseSummoning of accused placed in column No. 2 of challan to face trialQuashing of criminal proceedingsAccused contended that he was released under S. 169, Cr.P.C. on account of deficient evidenceAccused was named in column No. 2 of the challanTrial Court summoned accused to face trial after accepting application moved by prosecutionValidity

If there was some incriminating evidence against accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan, Trial Court's powers could not be curtailed

In the present case, contents of FIR and statement of prosecution witness were the only pieces of evidence available against the accused

Said evidence were vague and sketchy and without any other incriminating evidence

Circumstances suggested that there were remote chances of conviction of accused

Proceedings pending against the accused before the Trial Court were ordered to be quashed.

2016 PCrLJ 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 408 & 381Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; criminal breach of trust; theft by servantQuashing of criminal proceedingsScope

Contention of accused was that he was innocent and victim of personal grudge and departmental rivalry due to which he had been falsely implicated in the present case

Complainant's plea was that order passed by Judicial Magistrate was unexceptionable and that application for quashing the proceedings was liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the same was premature due to the fact that charge had been framed and summons and warrants had already been ordered to be issued to the complainant and witnesses

Held, that it was an admitted position that charge had been framed and summons and warrants had already been ordered to be issued to the complainant and witnesses

Four prosecution witnesses, including complainant himself, whose evidence was material was yet to be recorded in order to determine the guilt of accused

In absence of any prosecution witness being examined and any material evidence being brought on record by prosecution, application for quashment was premature and devoid of any merit

Application was dismissed, accordingly.