📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a criminal complaint that had led to an FIR being registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (attempted murder). After investigation, the case (challan) was sent to the Sessions Court for trial. However, the Sessions Judge in Tank found the registration of the FIR to be doubtful and sent the case file back to the police, asking them to apply the correct legal sections before resubmitting it.
The complainant challenged this order before the Peshawar High Court, arguing that the Sessions Judge had no authority to do this. The High Court agreed. It explained that under the Criminal Procedure Code, once a case triable exclusively by the Sessions Court is forwarded to it, the judge's job at this stage is limited to reviewing the police report, documents, and statements to decide whether there are grounds to frame a charge and proceed with trial. The law does not give a Sessions Court the power to declare an FIR's registration doubtful without evidence, nor to send the case back to the police for correcting the charged offence.
The High Court therefore quashed the Sessions Judge's order and directed him to proceed with the case following the proper trial procedure. This judgment matters because it clarifies the limits of a Sessions Court's authority at the pre-charge stage and reinforces that courts must follow the specific procedural steps laid down in the law rather than short-circuiting the process.
یہ کیس ایک ایسی فوجداری شکایت سے متعلق تھا جس پر تعزیراتِ پاکستان کی دفعہ 324/34 (قتل کی کوشش) کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کی گئی تھی۔ تفتیش مکمل ہونے کے بعد مقدمہ (چالان) ٹرائل کے لیے سیشن کورٹ بھیج دیا گیا۔ تاہم ٹانک کے سیشن جج نے ایف آئی آر کے اندراج کو مشکوک قرار دیتے ہوئے فائل واپس پولیس کو بھجوا دی اور ہدایت کی کہ درست قانونی دفعات لگا کر دوبارہ مقدمہ پیش کیا جائے۔
مدعی نے اس حکم کو پشاور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا اور مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ سیشن جج کو ایسا کرنے کا اختیار حاصل نہیں تھا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس دلیل سے اتفاق کیا۔ عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت، جب کوئی ایسا مقدمہ جس کی سماعت خصوصی طور پر سیشن کورٹ کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتی ہے، اس کے سامنے پیش کیا جاتا ہے، تو اس مرحلے پر جج کا کام صرف پولیس رپورٹ، دستاویزات اور بیانات کا جائزہ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Cr.C . ( Peshawar ) 824 [D.I. Khan Bench] Present: Abdul Latif Khan, J. ABDUL HAKEEM KHAN--Petitioner versus STATE and 3 others--Respondents Crl . Misc. Q. No. 158-D of 2012 with Crl . Misc. 159-D of 2012, decided on 24.6.2013. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 561-A, 265(c) & 190(2)-- Quashment --Cognizance--Sub-section (2) of Section 190 Cr.P.C provides that the Magistrate after cognizance under sub-section (1) of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions shall, without recording any evidence--Under Section 265(c), Cr.P.C ., copies of the documents mentioned therein are to be supplied to the accused free of cost, then charge has to be framed if, after perusing the police report or, as the case may be, the complaint, and all other documents and statements filed by the prosecution, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused, but in no case the Court of Sessions is empowered to observe registration of FIR as doubtful without the aid of any evidence or legal provisions and at the same time, no power is vested in the Curt of Sessions to return the record to the prosecution for applying correct section of law and then sending it to the proper Court for trial. [P. 826] A & B Duty of Court-- ----Obligation--It was obligatory upon the Court u/S. 265-D, Cr.P.C . to peruse all those reports, documents and statements and then form an opinion at the time of framing charge. [P. 826] C Mr. Muhammad Asghar Khan Kundi , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Jehanzeb Ahmad Chughtai , Advocate for State. Mr. Sarwar Khan Kundi , Advocate for Respondents No. 3 to 4. Date of hearing: 24.6.2013. Judgment Through the instant petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C ., the petitioner prays for quashment of order dated 05.5.2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Tank vide which the registration of case under Sections 324/34, PPC was field doubtful and record was returned to the prosecution for applying correct section of law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction by the Court below. He contended that the report of the petitioner culminated into FIR after lengthy process of inquiry under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C . and suggestion of registration of case thereupon by the District Prosecutor and the order passed by learned Justice of Peace under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C later on pre-arrest bail confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tank was recalled by this Court on 18.4.2012. He contended that on completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Sessions Judge, however, vide impugned order, the Court below returned the case to the prosecution for applying correct section which is against the mandate of law.
3. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the impugned order, however, the learned State counsel observed otherwise and contended that the impugned order is in accordance with law.
4. I gave my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
5. Section 190, Cr.P.C provides the procedure for the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Sub-section (2) of Section 190, Cr.P.C provides that the Magistrate after cognizance under sub-section (1) of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to Court of Sessions for trial. The instant case has been forwarded by the Magistrate in compliance to the above referred provision to the Court of Sessions who, under chapter XXII has to deal with the trials to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor before the Court of Sessions and it is mandatory for the Court to strictly follow the procedure laid down in the said chapter. Under Section 265(c), Cr.P.C , copies of the documents mentioned therein are to be supplied to the accused free of cost, then charge has to be framed if, after perusing the police report or, as the case may be, the complaint, and all other documents and statements filed by the prosecution, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused, but in no case the Court of Sessions is empowered to observe registration of FIR as doubtful without the aid of any evidence or legal provisions and at the same time, no power is vested in the Curt of Sessions to return the record to the prosecution for applying correct section of law and then sending it to the proper Court for trial. The impugned order is alien to the procedure prescribed under the chapter referred above for the trial before the Court of Sessions. It was obligatory upon the Court under Section 265-D, Cr.P.C . to peruse all those reports, documents and statements and then form an opinion at the time of framing charge which is lacking in the instant case.
6. In view of the above, this petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 05.5.2012 being passed in violation of procedure, law besides, is hereby quashed and the Sessions Judge, Tank is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the procedure given in Chapter-XXII referred above. (A.S.) Petition accepted