Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1354 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Saqib Hussain Soomro vs Baddaruddin So

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

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1354 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Saqib Hussain Soomro VS Baddaruddin Soomro Ss. 395, 447, 506-(2) & 337-H(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Quashing of order---Dacoity, criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety---Judicial Magistrate declined to accept the summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer recommending disposal of the FIR under C-Class, and instead took cognizance of the offence and directed that the case be sent up to the Sessions Court for trial under S.395, P.P.C---Validity---Impugned order clearly demonstrated that the Judicial Magistrate had judiciously applied his mind and passed a well-reasoned order by observing that the complainant's version was supported by witness statements and prima facie sufficient material existed to proceed to trial---Reliance on defence witnesses by the Investigating Officer without opportunity of judicial examination had rightly been disregarded---Judicial Magistrate had relied on sound legal principles, inter alia, that the findings of the police were not binding on the Court and that trial was the proper forum to ascertain truth through cross-examination and due process---Once cognizance had been taken, that Court could not interfere lightly under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., unless there was manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, which was not evident here---Applicant retained the remedy to approach the Trial Court under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. if he believed the charge was groundless---Jurisdiction conferred under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., was not intended to serve as an alternative or substitute for the specific remedies expressly provided under the Code, such as those available under Ss. 435 to 439 or Ss. 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., depending on the circumstances---Invocation of inherent powers of High Court could not be permitted as a means to sidestep or circumvent the ordinary legal remedies available in the normal course of judicial proceedings---Criminal miscellaneous application being bereft of substantive merits was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1354 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Saqib Hussain Soomro vs Baddaruddin Soomro Ss — 2025 MLD 1354 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD