Send the following on WhatsApp
Criminal Miscelleneous 154/2019 MRS. FARHEEN W/O AURANGZEB MUHAMMAD KHAN V/S THE STATE ANOTHER Sindh High Court, Karachi SHC Citation: SHC-142347 Tag:1. The ratio of the said judgments of the Supreme Court is that where the remedy under section 249-A Cr.P.C. is available before the trial Court, the High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C except in extraordinary circumstances which warrant such an action. In other words, the question is not to the jurisdiction of the High Court, but the manner in which such jurisdiction is to be regulated by the High Court. Ref. Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani (PLD 2016 SC 55); Maqbool Rehman v. State (2002 SCMR 1076); Bashir Ahmed v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298); Mian Munir Ahmad v. State (1985 SCMR 257). 2. It is a misconception to state that in all cases where it is being contended that a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case, an applicant need not approach the trial Court under section 249-A Cr.P.C. or 265-K Cr.P.C. 3. The argument that section 249-A Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked until a formal charge is framed under section 242 Cr.P.C., is misconceived. Section 249-A Cr.P.C. categorically states that the power thereunder can be exercised ???at any stage of the case???. Rel. State v. Ashiq Ali Bhutto, 1993 SCMR 523. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry Source: http://shc.gov.pk/caselaw/ Order http://shc.gov.pk/caselaw/hc-link.php?link=22.214.171.124:8056/caselaw/&hash=MTQyMzQ3Y2Ztcy1kYzgz
Don't have WhatsApp yet?