Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: VIII CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABADHonorable Justice Omar SialAgha Waqar Ahmad,Ms. Safa Hisbani
2022 P Cr. L J Note 65 [Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)] Before Omar Sial, J MUHAMMAD NAWAZ---Applicant Versus VIII CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD and 6 others---Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-134 of 2020, decided on 23rd September, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 173---Report of police officer---Addition or deletion of legal provision---Scope---Applicant was aggrieved of an order passed by Magistrate whereby charge under S. 324, P.P.C. was deleted---Progress report from the Trial Court reflected that the final arguments in the matter were complete---Trial Court was directed by High Court to examine whether an offence under S. 324, P.P.C., was made out or not---Application was disposed of accordingly. Agha Waqar Ahmad for Applicant. Ms. Safa Hisbani, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for Respondent No. 1. Shahzeb Abbasi for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2020. ORDER OMAR SIAL, J.---Muhammad Nawaz, the applicant, has impugned an order dated 10.03.2020 passed by the learned 8th Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The background to the case is that an FIR 13 of 2020 was registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-U, 504, 147 and 148, P.P.C. After investigation, when the challan was submitted it included section a further charge under section 324, P.P.C. The learned Magistrate was not convinced that the evidence collected made out under section 324, P.P.C. He was informed by the investigating officer that according to his investigation 324, P.P.C. was not made out but that he was told by the learned DPP to include it. The learned Magistrate ordered that the charge under section 324, P.P.C. be deleted and took cognizance of the other offences. The applicant is aggrieved with this order of the learned Magistrate and has argued that the learned Magistrate was not empowered to order deletion of the section. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh as well as the learned counsel for the private respondents. 4. The progress report from the learned trial court dated 10.09.2020 reflects that the final arguments in the matter are complete. As such, the learned trial court is directed that after it has evaluated the evidence that has been produced before it, it may examine whether an offence under section 324, P.P.C. is made out or not and proceed further in accordance with law. 5. The application stands disposed of with the above observations. SA/M-27/Sindh Order accordingly.