| Case ID |
0c04eea5-44c2-433e-843b-64490619508c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 2107 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 28, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
After a comprehensive review of the case details and the legal arguments presented by both parties, the High Court (AJ&K) concluded that the petition to quash the FIR lodged under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed. The Court determined that the alleged forgery in the revenue records occurred prior to the initiation of civil proceedings, making it ineligible for quashing under the inherent powers provided by Section 561-A. It was emphasized that civil and criminal cases regarding the same matter can proceed simultaneously without affecting each other, provided they address different aspects of the issue. The petitioners failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to warrant the quashing of the FIR, as the alleged misconduct was not connected to the pendency of the civil suit. Additionally, the Court noted that the protection against abuse of process of law under Section 561-A is intended to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where no other remedy is available. Given that the investigation was already underway and the allegations were substantiated by the inquiry report, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could not be exercised to halt the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, allowing the FIR and subsequent criminal investigation to proceed without interference. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of ASIF MAJEED AND ANOTHER vs S. P. KOTLI AND 2 OTHERS, adjudicated by the High Court (AJ&K) on June 28, 2018, the court addressed significant legal issues surrounding the quashing of an FIR under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The petitioners, ASIF MAJEED and another individual, sought the dismissal of FIR No.02/2017, lodged against them for offenses under Sections 467, 468, 420, and 465 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, in their capacity as patwaris, were involved in forging revenue records, cheating, and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
The case originated from an application filed by Respondent No.3, which led to an inquiry by the Extra-Assistant Commissioner Kotli. The inquiry report recommended stopping the annual increments of the accused patwaris and alleged collusion in tampering with revenue records to execute an exchange deed in their favor. Dissatisfied with these actions, the petitioners invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, claiming it was based on fictitious and fabricated grounds. They further contended that concurrent civil and criminal proceedings should not affect each other, asserting that the civil suit had been previously dismissed due to a lack of proof.
Represented by Mehboob Ellahi Chaudhary, the petitioners argued for the dismissal of the FIR, highlighting the absence of a cognizable offense and the potential societal humiliation and agony of a trial. They referenced precedents such as M. Naeem v. The State, Sheikh Muhammad Tahir v. The State, Abdul Jabbar v. The State, and Gul Muhammad v. The State to support their stance.
On the opposing side, Raja Masood Khan, representing Respondent No.3, argued that the FIR was rightfully filed based on the inquiry report and that the petitioners were directly implicated in the offenses. He maintained that the investigating agency had the authority to proceed with the case and that the High Court's intervention to quash the FIR would unjustifiably obstruct the criminal process.
Justice Sardar Muhammad Ejaz Khan presided over the case, meticulously examining the legal provisions and the facts presented. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the High Court possesses inherent powers to quash an FIR only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear abuse of process, jurisdictional defects, or a patent violation of law, among other stringent criteria. In this case, the alleged forgery was determined to have occurred prior to the initiation of the civil suit, negating the petitioners' argument that the civil proceedings affected the validity of the FIR.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist provided they address different aspects of the same issue without overlapping in jurisdiction or scope. The petitioners' inability to substantiate their claims and demonstrate a direct nexus between the civil suit and the criminal allegations led the Court to dismiss the petition to quash the FIR.
The decision underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of criminal investigations and preventing misuse of legal provisions intended to safeguard against genuine abuses of judicial processes. By upholding the FIR, the High Court reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that criminal offenses are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and accountability within the administrative framework.
This case also highlights the nuanced application of Section 561-A Cr.P.C., illustrating that while the High Court has broad inherent powers to intervene in legal proceedings to prevent miscarriages of justice, such intervention is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances. The judgment serves as a pertinent reference for future cases involving the quashing of FIRs, delineating the boundaries within which the High Court operates to balance individual rights against the imperatives of criminal justice.
In conclusion, the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition and uphold the FIR signifies a robust affirmation of legal principles governing the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings. It reinforces the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the legitimacy of FIRs while ensuring that mechanisms to prevent abuse of legal processes are judiciously applied, thereby maintaining public trust in the legal system and its capacity to deliver equitable justice. |
| Court |
High Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Deputy Commissioner Kotli,
Extra-Assistant Commissioner Kotli,
Patwaris,
Police Station, Charhoi
|
| Judges |
SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Mehboob Ellahi Chaudhary,
Raja Masood Khan,
Mirza Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Advocate General
|
| Petitioners |
ANOTHER,
ASIF MAJEED
|
| Respondents |
2 OTHERS,
S. P. KOTLI
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 614,
2019 MLD 287
|
| Other Citations |
M. Naeem v. The State through Prosecutor-General, Province of Sindh 2010 P.Cr.LJ 1039,
Sheikh Muhammad Tahir v. The State and 2 others 2012 PCr.LJ 1075,
Abdul Jabbar v. The State through Assistant Advocate General Kotli and 2 others 2014 PCr.LJ (AJ&K) 1,
Gul Muhammad v. The State 2015 PCr.LJ 1329,
Shan Muhammad v. Muhammad Younis and 4 others 2014 SCR 183
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
|
| Sections |
195(c),
561A,
420,
465,
467,
468
|