N.J. AUTOS through Lawful Authorized Officer vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 50 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

N.J. AUTOS through Lawful Authorized Officer VS State Ss. 200, 202, 203, 248 & 403---Private complaint, dismissal of---Double jeopardy, principle of---Second complaint after dismissal of first one under S.203, Cr.P.C.--- Validity--- Applicant was Recovery Officer of a company---Company entered into sale of 35 Motorcycles and 25 Rickshaws with respondent accused---Original papers were yet lying with company whereas official of excise department manipulated documents of title in favour of respondent/accused---Record showed that earlier petitioner filed a complaint against the private persons and officials, which was withdrawn and was disposed of under S.248, Cr.P.C.---Second complaint was filed on same facts and against same accused persons---Second complaint was filed on the plea that law recognized filing of second complaint even after dismissal of first complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Law permitted filing of second complaint but only as an exception---Disposal/dismissal of a complaint during preliminary proceedings was completely different from that of disposal after taking cognizance of the offences on a complaint, in former case the matter remained between the court and the complaint where the complainant was required to prima facie make out a case of taking cognizance wherein the accused had no right of participation while in later the court not only had taken cognizance but summoned the accused to face the trial---When the court took cognizance and issued process to the accused to face the trial, the accused stood involved in such proceedings---Protection provided by S.403, Cr.P.C., in circumstances, became functional---Withdrawal under S.248 Cr.P.C. was not dependent upon a mere withdrawal statement of complainant but required complainant to satisfy conscious of the court that there were grounds for permitting him to withdraw---Such provision of law was obligatory and in such eventuality the accused would be acquitted---Dismissal for any reason before exercise of S.203, Cr.P.C. would not stand as a bar to filing of second complaint on same facts---Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, in circumstances---Admittedly, second complaint on same facts and against same accused was not competent because disposal of the earlier complaint was under S.248, Cr.P.C.---Record transpired that Director General and Incharge Motor Registration Wing were respondents by designation---Petition being devoid of substance was dismissed, in circumstances.

N.J. AUTOS through Lawful Authorized Officer vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 50 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported