Syed Mohammad Abbas vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 559 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.

Syed Mohammad Abbas VS State Ss. 249-a, 265-K and 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 427 & 34---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---allegation that complainant got the FIR against the accused/applicant with sole aim to deprive the applicant from inheritance and that the accused/applicant was colouring the civil dispute into criminal solely to pressurize the applicant and illegal investigation was carried out against the applicant, which required quashing of the same---Validity---Remedy provided under S.561-a, Cr.P.C., could not be construed as an alternate remedy or substitute for an express remedy provided under Ss. 249-a or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case maybe---Therefore, the ordinary remedy provided under the law could not be bypassed or circumvented---Section 249-a,Cr.P.C.,provided the powers of the Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it is considered that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---Likewise, S.265-K, Cr.P.C., also vested in the Court (Sessions Court or High Court) the powers to acquit the accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, itis considered that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---However, according to the judicial consensus and unanimity matured on the characteristics of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.561-a, Cr.P.C., it is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction so conferred is curative in nature---In fact, the expression "abuse of process" used under S.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---Essential purposefulness of this doctrine is to foster and safeguard the judicial system, ensuring that it is not misused or blemished---This terminology can be comprehended as an acuity that if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case, it may terminate the prosecution if an abuse of process is floating on the surface on record, with logical reason and probability of exasperation, persecution and unfairness to the opposite side----applicant had already availed his remedy under the prescriptions of S.249-a,Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate and that too had already been dismissed, which fact was also admitted by the counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments, thus, the Criminal Miscellaneous application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed Mohammad Abbas vs State Ss — 2026 MLD 559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD