Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SONA MIYAN VS Respondent: STATE
1992 M L D 2404
1992 M L D 2404
[Karachi]
Before S. Khurshid Hyder Rizvi, J
SONA MIYAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Cr.Misc. Appln. No..388 of 1991. decided on 31st May 1992.
Sindh Crimes Control Act (V of 1975)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.14‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑Police in its report had not mentioned the date, time and place of any act alleged to have been committed by the accused and the allegations against him were vague and general in nature‑‑‑No ground, therefore, actually existed for taking proceedings against the accused under S.14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 and the same were quashed ac c6idingly
Muhammad Nasim Qureshi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1249 rel.
Ataullah Khan for Petitioner.
Zaheer Qureshi for State.
Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992..
JUDGMENT
This application on behalf of the applicant Sona Miyan has been moved for quashment of the proceedings, pending against him, before the S.D.M. Harbour, on the report of SHO TPX Police Station, Karachi under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975.
2. I have heard Mr. Ataullah Khan Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Zaheer Qureshi Advocate on behalf of the State. The report of the S.H.O. TPX Police Station is as under:‑‑
"It is respectfully submitted that the above‑named person is residing within the area of this P.S. He is ill‑reputed and indulging in gambling and selling of women otherwise there is no source of income of said person. He is a headache for the locality people and has brought bad name in the area. His nefarious activities and criminal acts have made attention of high up which are time and again highlighted in the press. Despite following criminal record at his credit and in spite of the fact that he remained behind the bars .for considerable long periods, but he did not mend his ways and as soon as he comes out he again starts his nefarious acts as mentioned above.
In the circumstances mentioned above there is no alternate except to book him under Sindh Crimes Control Act to prevent him from committing such shabby crimes. The following is criminal record at his credit:'
The list of witnesses in the case against the applicant is reproduced hereinbelow:‑‑
S. No.
FIR No. U/S.
NAME WITH FATHER'S NAME
NAME OF P.S.
1.
62/88, 5 (5‑A)
GAMB:Ord:
(1) S.I., Fazel Haq
(2) S.I. Faiz Muhammad
(3) Abdul Wahid s/o Abdul Ghafoor r/o Muhammadi Colony, Karachi
(4) Syed Ahmed s/o Sehrab Gulr/o Muhammadi Colony, Karachi.
T.P.X.P.S.
‑do‑
2.
153/88
II Zina Ord:
(1) S.I. Faiz Muhammad pasted at
(2) S.I. Muhammad Ramzan?
(3)??????? Qasim s/o Abdul Ghani r/o Pak Muslim Burma Colony, Karachi.
(4) ‑Abdul Qadar s/o Abdul Aleem r/o House No.1163/5 Sheriz Faisal Colony, Karachi.
(5) Shams‑ud‑Din s/o Abdul Gafoor r/o Pak Muslim Burma Colony,? Karachi.
6) Karmet Ali s/o Rehmat Mian r/o Pak Muslim Burma Colony, Karachi.
(7) Khuzi Muhammad s/o Ali Muhammad r/o Muhammadi Colony,? Karachi.
(8) Jan Muhammad s/o Faqir Muhammad r/o Muhammadi Colony, Karachi.
(9) Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah s/o Chand Muhammad r/o Pak Muslim Burma Colony, Karachi.
T.P.S.P.S,
3.
91/91 13‑D/ Arms: Ord
(1) A.S.I. Qasim Ali posted at
(2)H.C.517 Asmat Javed
(3) P.C. 2647 Mazher Hussain Shah
(4) A.S.I. Munir Ahmed Balouch.
T.P.X.P.S. ‑do‑
4.
13,Zina: Ord:
(1) S.I. Ghulam Asghar Khan Balouch posted at (2) A.S.I. Qasim Ali (3) H.C, 390 Zafar Iqbal (4) P.C. 2535 Javed Akhtar (5) Mustafa s/o Syed Nobit r/o Pak Muslim Burma? Colony, Karachi.
T.P.X.P.S. P.S.T.PX T.P.X.P.S. T.P.X.P.S.
(6)??????? Farooq s/o Sanaullah r/o Pak Muslim Burma Colony, Karachi.
5.???????? 218/91
13 Zina: Ord: Pending Investigation. (Sd.)
STATION HOUSE OFFICER TYX POLICE STATION KARACHI
Perusal of the report and the list of the cases indicate that the applicant has not been convicted in any case except, according to the counsel for the applicant, in a case under Gambling Act and in that too he was punished with Rs.50 only. In the report, the SHO has not mentioned the date, time and place of any act alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Contention of the applicant's counsel is that the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature. In support of his contention he has relied on the case reported as Muhammad Nasim Qureshi v. The State (1990 PCr.LJ 1249). State counsel has also supported the quashment application.
I have perused the authority cited by the applicant's counsel which appears to be fully applicable to the present case. In view of the authority mentioned above and the facts of the present case, I find that there was actually no ground fear taking proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975 against the applicant. I, therefore, accepting the application, quash the proceedings pending before the learned S.D.M., Harbour, against the applicant.
N.H.Q./S‑915/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Proceedings quashed.