Section 561A—Agreement to sell the land— Payment of Tk. 50,000 made in part performance of the contract—Whether delay in registering the sale-deed and delivering the property to the opposite parties or subsequent conduct in refunding the contract money constitutes an offence of criminal nature—Facts alleged in the FIR do not disclose any criminal offence— Transaction being of civil nature the continuation of proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. Abdul Bari vs Abul Hashem Mazumder 40 DLR 301.
Section 561A—Whether a proceeding under section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be quashed depends upon the facts of the case itself. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Delay is by itself no ground for quashing the criminal proceeding. But machinery of justice should not be allowed to harass any innocent person. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—When a prosecution arises out of ill-motive or improper motive the machinery of administration of justice need not be available to such person. Reason of delay in lodging FIR is unconvincing. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—The informant’s plea that he could not lodge FIR due to alleged lawlessness even after 1975 although there was constitutional government for over 4 years except a Martial Law Government for a brief period is unacceptable. The proceedings are quashed. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Mere delay in lodging a complaint is not a ground for quashing a proceeding. There may be circumstances in which lodging of FIR as to commission of an offence may be delayed. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Explanation for delay in lodging FIR was given, i.e. fear of life from very influential persons. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Delay raises doubt about the truth of allegation. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Principles upon which exercise of extraordinary powers under section 561A CrPC is made have been stated. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Facts of the instant case do not bring it within the ambit of exceptional circumstances in which the extraordinary power of the Court may be exercised. Md. Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—A timely GD entry of course strengthens the allegation made in the complaint and its absence may create doubt about it; but doubt in the allegation is a matter to be considered at the trial only. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69.
Section 561A—Despite earlier order of rejection of the prayer for quashment of the proceeding, the subsequent application will not operate as a bar for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC. AKMM Saleh vs State 45 DLR 386.
Section 561A—On the death of principal offender possibility of proving the guilt of the abettor becomes bleak. AKMM Saleh vs State 45 DLR 386.
Sections 561A—If the trial Court fails to perform its duly in respect of framing of charge and the charge is framed on insufficient materials High Court Division can investigate whether the charge is groundless. AKMM Saleh vs State 45 DLR 386.
Section 561A—Cognizance taken and trial held in this case being without jurisdiction, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Khalilur Rahman vs State 41 DLR 385.
Section 561A—View of the Additional judge not so perverse as to merit interference. Moslemuddin Dhali vs Helaluddin Dhali 41 DLR 120.
Section 561A—The fact that the accused were tried and found guilty and then unsuccessfully filed an appeal and a revisional application cannot be a ground, in the facts of the present case (i.e. absence of any legal evidence), for refusing to exercise the Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice by way of setting aside their conviction. Mofuzzal Hossain Mollah vs State 45 DLR (AD) 175.
Section 561A—In a proceeding under this provision the court should not be drawn in an enquiry as to the truth or otherwise of the facts which are not in the prosecution case. HM Ershad vs State 45 DLR (AD) 48.
Section 561A—Mere plea of right of private defence cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding, for such plea is to be established by the accused who takes it. A criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed only if the facts alleged in the First Information Report of complaint petition, even if admitted, do not constitute any criminal offence or the proceeding is barred by any provision of law. Where disputed facts are involved, evidence will be necessary to determine the issue. The appellants have produced an order of temporary injunction against the complainant’s party. This must be considered along with other evidence during the trial. Their application for quashing the proceedings is found to have been rightly refused by the High Court Division. SM Khalilur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 62.
Section 561A—Quashing of proceedings for alleged breach of trust and cheating: Money claims, not the outcome of a particular transaction but arose after year-end accounting following regular business between the parties. If on settlement of accounts at the end of a period some money falls due to one party from the other party and the other party fails to pay the dues, such liability cannot be termed criminal liability. Allegation that dues were allowed to accrue dishonestly, neither attract an offence under section 420 nor under section 406 or under any other section. The whole allegation in complaint petition, even if true, cannot form basis of any criminal proceeding. The proceedings are quashed. Syed Ali Mir vs Syed 0mar Ali 42 DLR (AD) 240.
Section 561A—The accused cannot challenge the entire criminal proceeding at a stage when the case is ripe for trial following framing of charge. When he has taken a specific defence against the charge on the basis of a GD entry he has to establish the same. The charge under section 420 Penal Code is upheld. Shafiuddin Khan vs State 45 DLR 102.
Section 561A—Questions whether the occurrence was accidental and whether the petitioner had intention to commit mischief to the complainant needs evaluation of evidence to be led by the prosecution which cannot be stifled by exercising power for quashment. When allegations create both civil and criminal liabilities it is for the complainant to choose any or both of the forums for redress of grievance. Tofazzal Hossain Chowdhury vs Mir Amanullah 45 DLR 263.
Section 561A—lt has been asserted that the FIR itself was lodged by the complainant after receiving an order from the Home Ministry and not on his own. A prosecution cannot be quashed just because it was initiated at the instance of the Home Ministry. The question of possession can only be decided on evidence and not on submission on law as to what constitutes possession. The question whether the proceeding should be quashed or not should be decided on facts alleged in the FIR and charge-sheet. The accused’s general denial that the facts disclosed in the FIR are not true will not do. To succeed, the accused must show that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not constitute any offence or that the prosecution is otherwise barred by law. Hussain Mohammad Ershad vs State 43 DLR (AD) 50.
Section 561A—Quashing of proceeding— Court will be loath to stifle a prosecution at the initial stage unless facts are such as would attract inference that even upon admitted facts no case can be made out and continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Al-haj Md Serajuddowlah vs State 43 DLR (AD) 198.
Section 561A—Quashing of proceedings — Whether the untrue statement of the accused regarding his imported goods on which he has been prosecuted under the Customs Act is intentional or unintentional, bonafide mistake or a case of absence of knowledge is for the trial Court to decide on the basis of evidence that would be adduced—if the pending proceeding is stopped at this stage it would amount to stifling the proceeding in Limine. Atiqur Rahman vs AKM Fazlul Haque 43 DLR 49.
Section 561A—Indictment proceeding against a detenu—Question of its legality or otherwise at the time when it was initiated and at a subsequent time—An order of detention would be deemed to be warrant of arrest from the Court of Magistrate; if the detenu would violate the warrant he would be a fugitive from justice. His failure to comply with direction to surrender, would immediately attract the mischief of prosecution and consequent punishment. The offence would be complete on failure to surrender, subject however, to the defence of impossibility of performance which is a matter of fact to be decided on evidence. Section 7(1)(b) is a punitive provision to come into play immediately after the lapse of time for surrender. The contention that the detention order being illegal the detenu had not rightly surrendered has little substance. It is not the order of detention but it is the fact of detention itself that matters. At the time it was initiated the proceeding was not prohibited by any law nor was it taken in violation of any law. It need not therefore be quashed at the present stage. Anwar Hossain Monju vs State 43 DLR 447.
Section 561A—Petition of complaint contains allegations under sections 295A/298/109
Section 561A—Inherent power under this section though unlimited should be exercised only in 3 cases when no other alternative remedy is generally available under the Code to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure he ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, any interference with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate at this belated stage will
not serve any of the purposes of this section, rather such interference may cause undue harassment to the opposite party and defeat the ends of justice. State vs Satya Narayan Sarada 43 DLR 529.
Section 561A—The decision in this case having depended on findings of facts as to whether the seized arms were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, whether the same came within the exception provided for and covered by amnesty, if any, declared by the Government, the extraordinary power to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court is not required to be exercised. HM Ershad vs State 43 DLR 150.
Section 561A—Allegation made in the FIR having not disclosed any offence of extortion as deemed under section 383 Penal Code, the impugned proceeding against the accused for his punishment under section 387 Penal Code is quashed. Abul Bashar vs State 44 DLR 391.
Section 561A—Default in delivery of share certificate—Quashing of proceeding for such default—It is not the complainant’s case that his share certificates were not made ready within time. Once the share certificates are completed and made ready within time, the liability of the accused persons ends. The law does not provide that the certificates are to be made ready for delivery to the complainant. Non-delivery of the share certificates is not an offence and the proceeding is liable to be quashed. Muhammadullah vs Makbul Ahmed 44 DLR 107.
Section 561A—Writ Jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division, applicability of—If there was any statutory provision of appeal and revision for setting aside the proceedings in question against the petitioner, then the question whether any equally efficacious adequate alternative remedy is available to him would act as a bar to move the High Court Division under the writ jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division under section 56 1A CrPC cannot be said to be an alternative remedy to the Court’s writ jurisdiction. Anisul Islam Mahmood vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 1.
Section 561A—Quashing of criminal proceeding whether can be allowed under writ jurisdiction—Labour Court being a court subordinate to the High Court Division quashing of criminal case can appropriately be prayed before the criminal bench of the Court which is the efficacious remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. SM Shafiul Azam vs Director of Labour 44 DLR 582.
Section 561A—Though the inherent power of the High Court Division is undefined and unlimited but this inherent jurisdiction should not be generally and indiscriminately invoked particularly when some other remedy is available. The jurisdiction is not alternative or an additional one but it is I jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available nor has been provided in the Code itself. Engineer Afsaruddin Ahmed vs State 46 DLR 496.
Section 561A—Inherent jurisdiction of Court—Whether such jurisdiction is applicable in cases from which appeals are barred by limitation—Section 561A CrPC cannot be conceived to give the High Court Division jurisdiction to retrieve the cases from the moratorium after they have been barred by limitation. Then, in the memo of the appeal taken or in the submission no ground has been taken that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case or that it arrived at absurd or preposterous conclusion from the evidence on record. The section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not given any new jurisdiction to the High Court to override other laws. It is easy to see that this Court cannot have any inherent jurisdiction to strike down the law of limitation. The law of limitation is so inexorable that a person loses his good title on account of law of limitation. It may be desirable that something is done for the redress of the accused who lost their right of appeal and has very good case in their defence, but it is for the legislature to do. Mohammad Ali vs State 46 DLR 175.
Section 561A—There is nothing in precluding a criminal case on account of a ci suit pending against the petitioners on the facts. The criminal case stands for the offend while the civil suit is for realisation of money both can stand together. Khondaker Mahatab uddin Ahmed vs State 49 DLR (AD) 132.
Section 561A—The Drug Control Ordinance is an additional forum for trying drug offences. Taking of cognizance and framing of charge by the Tribunal under the Special Powers Act in respect of offences relating to possession of spurious medicine, are not illegal and the prosecuting thereof are liable to be quashed. Ordinance No. VIII of 1982 has been promulgated not with a view to excluding all other trials on the same offence but as an additional forum for trying drug offences. If the same offence can be tried by a Special Tribunal under the Special Powers Act it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner has an exclusive right to be tried by a Drug Court only. As on the petitioner’s own showing he has been charged only under section 25C(d) of the Special Powers Act by the Senior Special Tribunal, we do not find any illegality in the proceedings. Ashraf Ali @ Asraf Ali vs Slate 49 DLR (AD) 107.
Section 561A—It cannot be said that the Court was wrong in holding and acting on the premises that the dispute between the parties arising out of a joint stock should be settled in the civil Court and the criminal proceeding be quashed. Ansarul Haque vs Abdur Rahim 49 DLR (AD) 145.
Section 561A—The Sessions Judge having passed an order under section 439A CrPC setting aside finding of the Magistrate under section 145 CrPC and all remedies for the first party being exhausted, the party is competent to invoke section 561A [1984 BLD (AD) 165 ref] Soleman (Md) vs Ahbarek Khalifa 46 DLR 298.
Section 561 A—Quashing of a proceeding can be made even at the initial stage of a case, and when facts, and circumstances demand, even at the stage when cognizance is taken by the, Magistrate in a case under the Penal Code. Mubashwir Alli vs State 46 DLR 535.
Section 561A—The exercise of power under this section is not totally barred against an order passed by the Sessions Judge under section 439A CrPC. It is to be seen whether the petitioner invokes this Court’s revisional jurisdiction under the garb of an , application under section 561A CrPC. If the condition of this section is fulfilled the High Court Division may exercise its power thereunder. Fatema Begum vs Gageswar Nath and State 46 DLR 651.
Section 561A—When exercising jurisdiction under this section, the High Court Division will not embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not which is a function of the trial Court. Quashment of criminal proceeding before commencement of trial may amount to stifling the prosecution. Abu Bakar vs State 46 DLR 684.
Sections 561A, 438 & 439A—Reference—Since the petitioner could not make out a case of quashing of the proceedings and since no such power is vested in the Sessions Judge the impugned order refusing to make a reference to the High Court Division suffers from no illegality. Farhad Hossain vs Mainuddin Hossain Chowdhury 46 DLR 127.
Section 561A—The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division would be available even to a party who had lost in revision before the Sessions Judge. In this connection this Court, however, referred to the limited scope of section 56 1A and observed that this inherent power is neither an additional power nor an alternative power of the Court, that this power is to be exercised very sparingly keeping itself within the bounds of this provision and that a revision petition cannot be brought in the camouflage of a petition under section 561A. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Section 561A—The inherent power under section 561A can be invoked at any state of the proceeding, even after conclusion of trial, if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Appellant was convicted solely on the statement of a co accused who, however, did not implicate himself in the crime but shifted the blame upon others including the appellant. This Court found that there was no “confession” at all as its maker did not implicate himself in the crime and further that this statement was not corroborated by any other evidence and consequently the conviction was based on ‘no evidence’ which could be quashed by the High Court Division in exercise of its inherent power under section 561A. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Section 561A—The inherent power may be invoked independent of powers conferred by any other provisions of the Code. This power is neither appellate power, nor revisional power, nor power of review and it is to be invoked for the limited purposes.
This power may be exercised to quash a proceeding or even a conviction on conclusion of a trial if the Court concerned got no jurisdiction to hold the said trial or the facts alleged against the accused do not constitute any criminal offence, or the conviction has been based on ‘no evidence’ or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Section 561A—The decision of the judges that the application under section 561A is liable to be rejected for lack of jurisdiction is totally erroneous and it is held that the High Court Division has jurisdiction to entertain such an application but whether interference will be made in a particular case is altogether a different matter.The general principle is that the power being extraordinary its exercise also will be rarity. The “total bar” in section 43 9(4) of the Code, as spoken of by the learned Judges, is only against further revision—that is, revision under section. 439(1) of the Code and not against the Court’s inherent jurisdiction which is altogether different from any other jurisdiction under the Code. The High Court Division, on the one hand, willfully disregarded this Court’s decisions, and, on the other hand, flouted Article 111 of the Constitution. This cannot be countenanced and must be disapproved strongly. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Section 561A—An appeal filed under section 30 of the Special Powers Act but not admitted for hearing as it was found barred by limitation can be allowed to be converted to a miscellaneous case under section 561A of the CrPC for securing the ends ofjustice. Sohail Ahmed Chowdhury vs State 47 DLR 348.
Section 561A—After conversion of an appeal to an application under section 561A CrPC the application can be disposed of by the same Bench without issuing a Rule afresh—technicalities of procedure may be avoided with a view to securing the ends of justice. Sohail Ahmed Chowdhury vs State 47 DLR 348.
Section 561A—This Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court under section 56lA of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Serajul Islam vs Fazlul Hoque 47 DLR 480.
Section 561A—This Court in exercise of its extraordinary power of quashing cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court to receive and examine evidence adduced by the accused in his defence to exonerate him from the charge brought against him. Shyamal Chandra Das vs State 47 DLR 474.
Section 561A—This section corresponds to section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with almost similar principle. Sohail Ahmed Chowdhury vs State 47 DLR 482.
Section 56 lA—Inherent jurisdiction— Extent of applicability—Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division which is generally exercised for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court in respect of the pending proceedings can also be invoked in appropriate cases for securing the ends of justice in respect of a proceeding which has reached its finality. Sohail Ahmed Chowdhwy vs State 47 DLR 482.
Section 561A—Finding of guilt of accused person cannot be based merely on high probabilities but should be rested surely and firmly on the evidence and mere conjecture and hypothesis cannot take the place of proof.In the present case the non production of seized gold for which no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution, failure of the prosecution to test the seized gold by an expert are sufficient to show that the judgment and order of conviction is based on surmises and not on evidence and hence liable to be quashed. Sohail Ahmed Chowdhury vs State 47 DLR 482.
Section 561A—Interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 561A of the Code at the initial stage of investigation or before taking cognizance or framing of charge will be justified only when this Court finds that the allegations made in the First Information Report or petition of complaint do not constitute the offence alleged against the accused or that on the admitted facts no case can stand against the accused. Santosh Bhusan Das vs State 47 DLR
Section 561A—That a Minister is personally interested in the case against the accused, though found to be true, by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the allegation against the accused is false. The High Court Division observed rightly that the proceeding cannot be quashed as it remains for the prosecution to establish the allegation by adducing evidence in trial. Engineer Afsaruddin Ahmed vs State 47 DLR (AD) 10.
Section 561A—In view of the unusual facts and circumstances of the case i.e. reinvestigation by the Criminal Investigation Department to be a malafide act to create cleverly a plea of alibi for a particular accused the order of the High Court Division allowing quashment need not be interfered with. Afia Khatoon vs Mobassawir Ali 47 DLR(AD) 62.
Section 561A—In a rule for quashing the proceeding the Court cannot enter into the merits of the allegations. Khorshed Alam vs Azizur Rahman 48 DLR 36.
Section 561A—Even if accounts of the company were audited and approved by the shareholders the same cannot exonerate the persons in charge of the management of the company from facing trial on the allegation of misappropriation of the fund. Khorshed Alam vs Azizur Rahman 48 DLR 36.
Section 561A—Fresh trial of the petitioner for the negligence of the presiding officer concerned would be an unnecessary harassment to him and an abuse of the process of the Court. Question is whether for such negligence of the presiding officer concerned petitioner should suffer a fresh trial for no fault of his own and procedural technicalities should be allowed to prevail over the ends of justice. In this connection we like to mention that no complaint was made by the Public Prosecutor before the said Tribunal before passing of the said order that no trial was held culminating in pronouncement of judgment on 25-1-89 in open Court acquitting the accused petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the petitioner should not face any fresh trial for the negligence of the presiding officer. Adhir Kumar Shaha vs State 48 DLR 87.
Section 561A—In view of existing legal position owing to the enactment of sections 265C & 241A CrPC an accused can prefer an application under section 56lA if he became unsuccessful in his application either under section 265C or section 241A. Otherwise his application under section 561A would be premature. Liton vs State 48 DLR 102.
Section 561A—Even when the seized documents placed before the Court were seized illegally the Court cannot but consider those as relevant to the matter in issue and no inherent jurisdiction of the Court could be exercised for a discussion on evidence. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR 108.
Section 561A—Submission of charge-sheet beyond the specified time of 30 days under the Anti-Terrorism Act is illegal and, as such, the proceeding cannot proceed in the Anti-Terrorism Tribunal. Shahidullah Kazi, Amjad Hossain vs State, Abul Kasem 48 DLR 178.
Section 561A—Since the jurisdiction of the criminal Court to draw up proceedings under section 145 of the Code is ousted as the civil Court is in seisin of the subject matter of the dispute the entire proceeding in question appears to be without jurisdiction. Jasimuddin vs Md Humayun Kabir 48 DLR 578.
Section 561A—Examination of the existing materials on record taking into account the defenses that the petitioner might offer at the trial, whatever be the merit of such an exercise, is certainly rot the method of disposal of an application under section 561A moved after framing of charge in the case.
After framing a charge, an application under section 561A CrPC to quash the proceedings is still available to the accused-petitioner on the ground that the allegation of facts even if true do not support the accusation or any other offence against him. The charge itself may be impugned but it is not the function of the trial Court while framing charge or the Court exercising jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC to examine the admissibility, relevance, propriety or sufficiency of materials. For, all these questions, especially in a criminal trial, are mixed questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved in an abstract manner without the facts surfacing at the trial. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR (AD) 42.
Section 561A—A wide conclusion that after framing of charge no application under sections 561A CrPC lies should be read in the observation of the High Court Division—”I do not agree with the learned Counsel of the petitioner that at this stage, after framing of charge, the proceedings cannot be proceeded with”. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR (AD) 42.
Section 561A—There may be cases where allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, and in such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court Division to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow process of the criminal Court to be issued against an accused person. The High Court Division may interfere under section 561A even during Police investigation cognizable offence is disclosed and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed because in that case the Police would have no authority to undertake an investigation. But the usual and well settled practice is that a criminal proceeding can only be quashed after cognizance has been taken and process issued thereupon subject to the fundamental principle that the power of quashing is and should be very sparingly exercised and only to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Syed Mohammad Hashem vs State 48 DLR (AD) 87.
Section 561A—A Criminal Proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials which are still not part of the materials for prosecution The High CourtDivision deviated from a well known norm of disposal of an application for quashing criminal proceeding by taking into account the defence version of the case. Rehela Khatun vs Abul Hassan 48 DLR (AD) 213.
Section 561A—A careful reading of sections 29,463 and 464 of the Penal Code together would clearly show that a false document must have been actually made and that mere taking of a signature on a blank paper without writing anything on that paper does not make it a document. Since the complainant petitioner did not disclose the nature of the document allegedly created the allegations made do not constitute the offence under section 465 of the Penal Code and as such, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. Syed Khalilullah Salik alias Juned vs Haji Md Rahmat Ullah 2. Slate 49 DLR 16.
Section 561A—Rejection of writ petitions against criminal proceedings on grounds of availability of alternative remedy by way of quashing of the proceeding cannot be a bar against further writ petitions against the same criminal proceedings when the very legality of the institution of the proceedings have been challenged. Shahriar Rashid Khan vs Bangladesh 49 DLR 133.
Section 561A—The present case under sections 4(2) and 5(2) of Act II of 1947 initiated by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption involving only private individuals is not maintainable in law and is therefore, liable to be quashed. Golam Abdul Awal Sarker vs State 49 DLR 95.
Section 561A—In the circumstances that the petitioner has all along flouted summons and warrant and never asked for bail even in the High Court Division, it is difficult to entertain his application for quashing of proceeding before he surrenders to the Court. We have also seen from the affidavit and submission that the petitioner is an old man and professor of a University suffering from ailments and is not able to go to Gopalganj. Considering the nature of the case we direct that the case may be withdrawn from the Magistrate Court Gopalganj to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka where the petitioner must surrender and obtain bail. Dr Ahmed Sharif vs State 49 DLR 100.
Section 561A—Where a prima facie case of criminal offence has been clearly made out, the High Court Division in a proceeding under section 561A CrPC has little scope to scrutinise the truth or otherwise of any document or other evidence, which may be used as a defence in a criminal proceeding. Kamrul Islam vs Atikuzzaman 49 DLR 258.
Section 561A—Institution of a money suit for recovery of the money will not stop prosecution for an offence committed in the eye of law. Nurul Islam vs State 49 DLR 464.
Section 561A—When in the FIR and before the Court the informant stated that the petitioner had illicit intercourse with her against her will and the evidence disclosed a case against, the Court cannot shift the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution. Alamgir Hossain (Md) alias Alamgir vs State 49 DLR 630.
Section 561A—The criminal proceeding in the instant case is required to be quahed to secure the ends of justice so that title may be set at right once and for all by the civil Court. Sabdul Ali vs Md Mabed Ali Sarker 50 DLR 146.
Section 561A—The notice for talak was issued on 26-6-95, but the petitioner took the second wife on 29-5-95, about a month before the service of the notice, not to speak of expiry of 90 days as provided for under section 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance to make the pronouncement of talak effective. As such the application for quashment of proceedings for punishment of the petitioner is summarily rejected. AKM Rafiqul Alam vs State 50 DLR 265.
Section 561A—The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has avoided passing of orders on flimsy grounds and, as such, the question of approval of the District Magistrate for such permission does not arise. In such a case, the under- trial prisoner could invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for ends of justice. The under trial prisoner in this case is entitled to Class I status in the jail under the provisions of Paragraph 910 of the Jail Code and the authority is directed to allow the status due to him. Major (Retd) M Khairuzzaman vs State 50 DLR 283.
Section 561A—Taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.
On a reading of the petition of complaint it is difficult to hold that the allegations and the complaint do not disclose any offence and the continuance of the proceeding will be a flagrant abuse of the process of the Court and the same is to be buried before trial and the inherent power which are in the nature of extraordinary power has to be passed in aid. Rustom Ali Matubbar vs Md Salahuddin 50 DLR 301.
Section 561A—From the petition of complaint we find no allegation of initial deception on the part of the accused-petitioner or entrustment of any property. Ingredients of the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust having not been disclosed in the petition of complaint the same is liable to be quashed. Abdul Hai vs State 50 DLR 551.
Section 561A—Whether in the facts of a particular case a higher section is attracted can be considered at the time of framing of charge. It is not necessary to amend the charge-sheet to include a higher offence. Mokaddesh Mondal vs State 50 DLR (AD) 186.
Section 561A—Nothing was stated in the FIR that the accused denied that he would not pay the balance amount. No allegation of initial deception has also been alleged. The High Court Division rightly quashed the proceeding. Rafique vs Syed Morshed Hossain 50 DLR (AD) 163.
Section 561A—Subsequent allegations will not save limitation for prosecution—The requirement under the law is that the complaint against nonpayment of money has to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises—The High Court Division wrongly rejected the application for quashing. SM Anwar Hossain vs Md Shafiul Alam (Chand) 51 DLR (AD) 218.
Section 561A—A convict may invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court if he can make out a case of Coram non judice of the trial Court or that the facts alleged do not constitute any offence or that the conviction has been based on no legal evidence or otherwise for securing the ends of justice. Shahidul vs State 51 DLR 222.
Section 561A—A person having had prayed for rejection of his petition or appeal can not be given such latitude as to invoke the aid of section 561A CrPC. Shamsur Rahman alias Shamsu Moral vs State 51 DLR 338.
Section 561A—When the allegations made in the First Information Report or petition of complaint do not disclose any offence, an accused should not be compelled to wait till the stage of hearing under section 241A. Habib vs State represented by the Deputy Commissioner 52 DLR 105.
Section 561A—When the petitioner’s conviction is not based on any legal evidence and it is based only on the statement of the victim made under section 164 CrPC the judgment under Nano-Shishu Nirjatan Ain is quashed. Azibor Mollick vs State 52 DLR 576.
Section 561A—Allegation of giving instruction over telephone cannot be the basis of proceeding against the petitioner under section 186 of the Penal Code. The identity of caller cannot be proved and, as such, continuation of the proceeding shall be abuse of the process of the Court. Major General (Retd) Mahmudul Hasan vs State 52 DLR 612.
Section 561A—Where a criminal proceeding has been initiated in a competent court and it cannot be shown that such proceeding is allowed to continue in “abuse of process of court” and need be cjuashed “for ends of justice” dispensation of personal appearance of the accused before such court does not fall within the meaning of section 561A CrPC. Shahid Miah vs State 53 DLR (AD) 11.
Section 561A—The High Court Division as the Court of revision must be deemed to have power to see that a court below does not unjustly take away the character of a party or of a witness or a counsel before it. Bibhu Ranjan Das vs Hakim Ali 53 DLR 114.
Section 561A—Normally the Court does not interfere with the task of a public prosecutor as to how he conducts the prosecution but this court cannot overlook his functions even after publication of repeated articles in newspapers alleging serious allegations against him. Daily Star and Protham Alo Patrika vs State 53 DLR 155.
Section 561A—Wheat was supplied by the complainant on credit on the request of the petitioner who is close relation of the complainant. Under such circumstances a request cannot be considered as ‘false representation’ or ‘inducement’. The criminal proceeding is therefore quashed. Motaleb Hossain vs State 53 DLR 198.
Section 561A—As some payments were made by the accused persons, it cannot be said that there was any initial deception on the part of the accused persons. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that there are no elements o the offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code and, as such, continuation of the proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Abdul Rouf vs State 53 DLR 283.
Section 561A—Even though the case is pre- mature and it was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the proceeding is not liable to be quashed. Satya Narayan Poddar vs State 53 DLR 403.
Section 561A—When allegations show that the accused had initial intention to deceive, criminal case should not be quashed on the plea of pendency of civil suit for realisation of the money in question. Abdul Bari vs State 53 DLR 410.
Section 561A—Admittedly there was a transaction between the parties and the petitioner issued the cheque in question but the law of limitation stands as an impediment to proceed further with the case in view of clause (b) of section 138 and clause (b) to section 141 of the Act. Time is a great factor of human life specially when it comes into play for legal purpose. The proceeding of the CR case is quashed. Abdus Salam vs Md Munshi Rashed Kamal 54 DLR 234.
Section 561A—High Court Division cannot sift evidence like the Court of appeal nor give benefit of doubt to an accused in exercise of power under section 56lA of the Code. Delower Hossain @ Ali Hossain Bhuiyan vs State 54 DLR 114.
Section 561A—There is no distinction between principal in the first degree’ and ‘principal in the second degree.’ Under section 111 of the Penal Code an abettor is liable for a different act if that was probable consequence of the abetment. This is applicable to the accused guarantor. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Md Habib 55 DLR (AD) 19.
Section 561A—The High Court Division found that the complaint petition discloses an offence of inducement by the accused to part with money. By such inducement, the complainant paid money to the accused on the undertaking by the latter to repay the same as and when complainant demanded it. But the accused misappropriated the money by issuing cheques which were dishonoured. This establishes prima facie case of deception. Delwar Hossain vs Rajiur Rahman Chowdhury 55 DLR (AD) 58.
Section 561A—Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act an offence is committed if a cheque is dishonoured and if payment is not made within 15 days after receipt of a legal notice. It is a settled law that criminal proceeding can be proceeded independently of the civil suit. Monzur Alam vs State 55 DLR (AD) 62.
Section 561A—Where the prosecution upon exhausting all processes to secure attendance of witness is not in a position to say if any witness will be available at all. In a case of such extraordinary kind the question of delay in considering the, prayer for quashing of the proceeding may reasonably weigh with the Court. Bangladesh vs Md Amjad Ali Mridha 56 DLR (AD) 119.
Section 561A—Once quashing of proceedings of criminal case on the ground of delay is made general that shall destroy the concept of administration of criminal justice and finally lead
Section 561A—There is no bar for the complaint case against the respondent to proceed side by side with the winding up proceeding of the company owned by the complainant-petitioner and the convict-respondent. Amir Hossain vs MA Malek 56 DLR (AD) 146.
Section 561A—To meet the ends of justice the conviction under section 4 of the Anti- Terrorism Act is maintained but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life is modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine as ordered. Jahangir Alam vs State 56 DLR (AD) 217.
Section 561A—Cheques were presented to the bank twice within six months from the date it was drawn—Computation of 15 days for serving notice should be done from the date on which the cheques lastly returned by the bank—This having were been done the application under section 561A of Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived. Habibur Rahman Hawlader vs State 55 DLR 199.
Section 561A—The petitioner would get opportunity to raise the point whether the cheque was presented within time at the time of framing charge and the question when the cheque was presented to the bank for the 1st time cannot be decided in this application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a disputed question of fact. Hasibul Bashar (Md) vs Dilshed Huda 55 DLR 200.
Section 561A—The second first information report lodged is still under investigation and no police report has yet been submitted and, as such, it is not a judicial proceeding pending before a Court. Therefore, the same cannot be quashed under section 561A of the CrPC. It will be up to the Court to decide which one of the police reports he would accept after considering the entire facts of the case. Yasinullah vs State 55 DLR 393.
Section 561A—Since there is a claim and counter-claim between the parties this criminal case should not be allowed to proceed and they be given an opportunity to sort out claims in the Civil Court. Delwar Hossain Sowdagar vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 55 DLR 5.
Section 561A—Disputed facts cannot be decided when exercising a jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code. This is a function of the trial Court which would decide appropriately those facts on the basis of the evidence which will be adduced by the parties in the case. Amal Cabraal vs Golam Murtaza 55 DLR 492.
Section 561A—Non-compliance of the conditions of the ‘আপোষনামা’ regarding settling of the dispute arising out of an agreement to purchase a building does not attract the ingredients of the provision of sections 406/420 Penal Code. The allegation made in the first information report discloses a civil liability for which the criminal proceeding cannot but be quashed. Ashraf Miah vs State 55 DLR 509,
Section 561A—Criminal intention is sine qua non for an offence under section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When a decision is taken collectively or even individually by following the rules of procedure or the rules of business criminal intention behind such decision should not normally be inferred. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State 55 DLR 596.
Section 561A—Claim of ownership —Since both the accused-petitioner and the opposite party-informant claimed ownership of the truck, the matter should be fought out before the trial Court during the time of trial which cannot be considered in an application under section 56lA of the Code. Mohammad Syed vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 56 DLR 210.
Section 561A—Preventing abuse of the process of Court—The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate is directed not to entertain any application for showing the petitioner shown arrested in other cases which shall be forthcoming and not to make any order for sending him on remand from jail custody or for authorizing his detention in police custody for a period of two months from date, so that the petitioner on being informed about any other cases can voluntarily surrender before the Court. Nurul Islam Babul vs State 56 DLR 347.
Section 561A—There is vague and unspecific allegation of torture (নির্যাতন) Mental or physical torture (নির্যাতন)and causing hurt or injury (আহত করা বা জখম করা) are not the same act. The allegation of torture does not mean causing hurt. Thus the vague and unspecific allegation of torture made in the First Information Report does not attract an offence under section 11 (kha) of the Ain. So, the allegations made in the first information report, even if are taken as true, do not constitute an offence punishable under section 1 l(kha) or 1 l(kha)/30 of the Ain. Therefore, the proceeding should be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of the court and for ends of justice. MM Ishak vs State 56 DLR 516.
Section 561A—This court not being, a court of appeal has hardly any scope to sift and assess the evidence like a court of appeal in its extraordinary jurisdiction. Ayub Ali vs Abdul Khaleque 56 DLR 489.
Section 561A—This Court has always disfavored to grant relief in its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561 A to an absconder who does not approach the Court with clean hands. Ayub Ali vs Abdul Khaleque 56 DLR 489.
Section 561A—The order showing arrest of the present petitioner in connection with Special Tribunal Case No. 41 of 1996 passed in NGR Case No. 124 of 2002 on 5-1-2003 and the custody warrant issued against him on 6-1-2003 having found to have been passed illegally the same are quashed. Azad Hossain vs State 56 DLR 602.
Section 561A—Admittedly, in the present case the cheque was presented to the bank after expiry of 6 months from the date of drawing of the cheque. So, obviously this case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable in view of the restriction imposed by proviso (a) to the said section. So, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. MA Mazid vs Md Abdul Motaleb 56
Section 561A—In the background of the facts this is not a case of exceptional nature calling for quashing on the ground of delay or for exercise of discretion or of doing complete justice. State vs Md Arab Ali, Ex-Manager, Rupali Bank 57 DLR (AD) 102.
Section 561A—Frorn the first information report it appears that contents thereof even if accepted in its entirety no prima fade case is disclosed and, as such, the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order quashing the proceeding. State vs Md Nasim 57 DLR (AD) 114.
Section 561A—Jn spite of limitations the Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to see whether the trial Court looked into the relevant law and the materials to connect the accused with the offence leading to their prosecution in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Abdur Rahman Dhali vs State 57 DLR 17.
Section 561A—When the allegation made in the first information report or petition of complaint or the charge-sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, they should not be compelled to face the trial which amounts to abuse of the process of the court and the same is also to be prevented by invoking the inherent power of the Court. Abdur Rahman Dhali vs State 57 DLR 17.
Section 561A—In a proceeding under section 561A this court cannot be drawn in an inquiry to the truth Or otherwise of the facts which are not in the prosecution case. Khondaker Fazlul Haque vs State 57 DLR 166.
Section 561A—When evidence is required to determine the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners the proceeding cannot be quashed. Decisions reported in 19 DLR (SC) 369, 26 DLR (SC) 69, 31 DLR (SC) 69 and 32 DLR 182 deprecated quashing of proceeding immediately after submission of charge-sheet. Nasim vs State 57 DLR 546.
Section 561A—Police report under section 27(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Ain required for the Tribunal to take direct cognizance against any accused under provisions of said Nari-oShishu Nirjatan Daman Ain must be one under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as is usually submitted, always after investigation in a police case, started upon first information report lodged in thana or upon a complaint case filed in the Court by Magistrate but subsequently is sent there from to the thana to be treated as first in formation report and for investigation and report under section 173 of the Code. Provisions of 27(1) of the Ain further requires that the police report must be submitted by one police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or police. Amin Uddin vs State 58 DLR 294.
Section 561A—In the case in hand, just a first information report was filed and warrant of arrest was yet to be issued by the Magistrate. By filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has been before this Court and therefore, he cannot be termed a fugitive from justice. Jahangir Hossain Howlader vs CMM, Dhaka 58 DLR 106.
Section 561A—Civil Liability—A reading of the first information report as well as the plaint shows that the same allegations were made before the criminal Court and civil Court. Since there is
Section 561A—Relationship between the complainant and the accused being that of Directors of a private Limited Company, principles of partnership shall apply. As such spending of money by petitioner No.1 as Managing Director cannot be termed misappropriation or breach of trust of the fund of the company. Remedy of the complainant, if any, is by way of suit for accounts. Anarul Islam vs State 58 DLR (AD) 7.
Section 561A—Since the first information report discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and to that effect the charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the proceedings. AHS Rahman vs State 58 DLR (AD) 63.
Section 561A—When evidence is required to settle the allegation, proceeding cannot be quashed. A Wadud Member vs State 59 DLR 586.
Section 561A—Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the inherent jurisdiction of this court with clean hands as he has not paid the lawful dues of his principal. A person who admittedly has not approached with clean hands to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not entitled to any redress from this Court so long as he remains with unclean hands. Bhaskar Chakraborty vs State 59 DLR 325.
Section 561A—Before taking of cognizance of a case by the competent court or tribunal a proceedings cannot be said to be pending and accordingly, a proceeding cannot be quashed unless cognisance in respect thereof has been taken and process issued. Abdul Huque vs State 60 DLR (AD) 1.
Section 561A—Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal or revision will not stand on the way when the question of law and interpretation of statute is involved. Bangladesh vs Iqbal Hasan Mahmood 60 DLR (AD) 147.
Section 561A—Since the date of receipt is a question of fact to be ascertained at the time of trial non-disclosure of such fact in the complaint petition cannot render the proceeding liable to be quashed to the great prejudice of the complainant who is entitled to prove his case on evidence. Nizamuddin Mahmood vs Abdul Hamid Bhujyan 60 DLR (AD) 195.
Section 561A—Court should normally refrain from giving a prima fade decision in a case where the facts are incomplete and evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, are of immensity and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Yet no hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction. Sheikh Hasina vs State 60 DLR 217.
Section 561A—The proceeding of the case at any stage may be quashed even at the initial stage before taking of cognizance where allegations in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. Abdul Kadir vs Kowser Ahmed 60 DLR 17.
Section 561A—It appears from the plaint and also from the petition of complaint that even cause of action described in both litigations are on the same date, but it appears that the suit was filed earlier than the petition of complaint. In the decisions reported in 51 DLR (AD) 14, 45 DLR (AD) 31, 23 DLR (SC) 14 it has been held that on the self same averments if the suit be filed earlier, the criminal proceeding is to be treated as initiated only for harassment of the accused persons who are defendants in the suit. Mark Parco, MD, APL (Bangladesh) Pvt, Ltd vs State 60 DLR 45.
Section 561A—From a reading of the complaint and plaint of the suit that same allegations were before the criminal court as well as before the civil court, since there is a decree in Civil Court as per decision of 14 DLR (SC) 14, 45 DLR (AD) 31 and 51 DLR (AD) 14, no criminal proceeding can be continue. Monirul Islam vs State 60 DLR 59.
Section 561A—The power that is inherent with this Division under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not denied under Article 102 (2) of the Constitution for issuing certain direction or declaration where the facts and circumstances demand. Such power that is exercised in wider perspective under the authority of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land under which said Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed to be followed in investigation and prosecution of the criminal cases is more efficacious. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood vs Bangladesh 60 DLR 88.
Section 561A—What can be done under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be denied to be done under Article 102 of the Constitution to prevent the abuse of the process of a Court of law or to secure the ends of justice. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood vs Bangladesh 60 DLR 88.
Section 561A—If any Bangladeshi National is found in possession of Bangladesh currency notes of any amount, he cannot be taken to have committed any offence under the law of the land and the proceedings at the stage of FIR can be quashed to secure ends of justice. Ram Krishna Nath (Ram Babu) vs State 60 DLR 266.
Section 561A—After rejection of the prayer for further investigation by the Tribunal, the charge-sheet is then submitted by the police in the second case accusing the accused-petitioner on the self-same occurrence is malicious, calculated to victimize and harass the accused-petitioner and further proceeding in the case will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Ram Krishna Nath (Ram Babu) vs State 60 DLR 266.
Section 561A—Joinder of scheduled offence and non scheduled offence in framing charge is illegal and trial on such a charge is without jurisdiction. Abdul Kader vs State 60 DLR 457.
Section 561A—In the petition of complaint it has not been alleged as how and in what manner the accused-petitioner committed the offence of tampering with the meter—As such, the proceeding against him is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed. Ishaque vs State 60 DLR 650.
Section 561A—Jurisdiction to quash—This is not a case which is barred by any law nor this a case in which the contentions of the complaint even if admitted in its entirety, no offence is disclosed. The stage of considering the evidence has also not yet reached as the recording of evidence has not even started. Faridul Alam vs State 61 DLR (AD) 93.
Section 561A—The power conferred under section 561A of the Code cannot be lightly exercised in order to defeat and delay the normal procedure or to bid farewell to the alleged offender against whom specific allegation is available to commit a punitive offence only on ‘hyper technical’ ground. Specific time has been fixed by the statute to be followed by the authority at every stage in order to create pressure for expeditious disposal, not to bid farewell to the offender without trial on such technical ground. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.
Section 561A—The petitioner took money from the informant as loan for business purpose and, as such, in the allegation we do not find any ingredient of entrustment or that the money was taken with any specific promise or inducement. In absence of definite allegation, it cannot be held that taking of money as loan and subsequent failure or refusal by itself shall constitute criminal offence. Ayub Ali alias Mukul vs State 61 DLR 52.
Section 561 A—Civil Liability—Since according to the petition of complaint the accused petitioner totally denied the receipt of trucks by agreement and refused to pay the outstanding installments, the question of civil liability does not arise. Defence plea—the proposition of law is now well settled that on the basis of the defence plea or materials, the criminal proceedings should not be if1ed before trial, when there is a prima-facie case for going to the trial. When trial of the case has already commenced and the complainant was examined as a witness quashing of the proceedings is not permissible. Shahida Khatun vs Zafrul Hasan 61 DLR 270.
Section 561A—Nor these sections put any embargo on the power of a Police Officer to make search, seizure or to arrest any person or to investigate into a case and there is also nothing in the said Ain requiring a Police Officer to obtain prior permission of the Director General of Madak Drabya Niantron Adhidaptor to investigate into a case or to search, seize and to arrest any person who has committed or is committing or is likely to commit an offence under the said Ain. Liton Bhuiyan vs State 61 DLR 277.
Section 561A—Out of a contract of service between the employer and employee, whatever its kind may be, if a sum of money as salary, allowance, emolument etc is due to the employee to be paid by the employer, the former has a right to get it from the latter, who owes it to the former, but this right is always a civil or statutory right to be enforceable in a Civil Court or a Labor Court or the like. In such a case, question of criminal liability does not arise at all. The facts depicted in the petition of complaint do not disclose the offence under sections 406/420/ 109 of the Penal Code or any other offence against the accused- petitioners and therefore, allowing continuation of the proceedings in the above CR case will be a sheer abuse of process of court which should be prevented for the ends of justice. Veena Khaleque vs State 61 DLR 762.
Section 561A—Inherent power of the High Court Division is generally exercised where no other remedy is available for obtaining justice in the cause—it should not be invoked where another remedy is available. This power has not been vested upon the High Court Division where another remedy is available. This is an extraordinary power and is exercised in extraordinary circumstances in the interest of justice. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.
Section 561A—Whether the appellant has disproportionate wealth, he has concealed his known source of income, there is mis-joinder of charges and the trial of the appellant on facts allegedly committed prior to the promulgation of Dumity Daman Commission Ain, 2004 constitute an offence under the Dumity Daman Commission Ain are disputed facts can only be decided on evidence at the trial. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.
Section 561A—The inherent power of the Court is undefined and indefinite and, as such, it must be exercised very sparingly and with great caution. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.
Section 561A—The provisions of the Code provide that the administration of criminal justice should be allowed to proceed in the usual manner without interruption. If the High Court Division interferes with the case in the midst of the trial it will have to set up a wrong precedent by which instead of the cause of justice being advanced had really been stifled. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.
Section 561A—Since the prosecution case is almost over and the appellant put his defence by cross-examining the witnesses, in view of the consistent views of the superior Courts of this sub-continent that the High Court Division which exercising its power under section 561A of the Code should not usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.
Section 561A—No prima face case was made out against the respondent in the first information report and the District Anti-Corruption Officer, Gazipur without examining the necessary papers of the authority (IPSA) specially bill No.4 dated 29-10-1994 lodged the first information report.
During investigation by police usually the Court does not interfere under section 561 A of the Code but in the instant case is a fit case to interfere at the stage of police investigation to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. State vs Lailun Nahar Ekram 62 DLR (AD) 283.
Section 561A—Whether the notice as required to be served under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is essentially a question of fact to be proved by adducing evidence at the time of trial, inasmuch as, there is specific assertion in the complaint petition that such a notice was, served. Sheikh Mashuk vs State 62 DLR 28.
Section 561A—Mere presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does bar launching of a criminal case, if the complaint discloses a prima facie case as evident from the case reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 129, SW Palanitkar vs State of Bihar. Sheikh Mashuk Rahman vs State 62 DLR 28.
Section 561A—Defence plea—Defence plea, which, as per well settled principle, is to be decided by evidence before the trial Court and not at all a ground for quashment. Barrister Mainul Hosein vs Md Ali Hossain 62 DLR 38.
Section 561A—Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing a proceeding of a criminal case firstly to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order of the Code, secondly to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and lastly otherwise to secure ends of justice. M Fransis P Rojario alias Babu vs State DLR 355.
Section 561A—Initiation of the criminal case at the instance of the present complainant/informant without taking recourse of the res provided in Samabaya Samity Ain, is not maintainable in law. Since initiation of the case is barred by law, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code Criminal Procedure can quash the proceeding at its initial stage before taking cognizance thereof. M Fransis P Rojario alias Babu vs State DLR 355.
Section 561A—Quashing of Proceeding— From a reading of the FIR, it appears that the informant in writing made the statement that “আমি ব্যবসা করার জন্য চুক্তি মোতাবেক মাহমুদুর রহমান ব্যবস্থাপনা পরিচালক মেসার্স রহমান এন্ড কোং”। From this statement it appears that the said transaction was made under an agreement and the narration of fact in the FIR indicates also breach of terms of the agreement had crept up from business transaction. It also appears from the FIR that considerable amount, that is about Taka 16,50,000, has already been paid by the accused-petitioner We are of the view that no criminal intention to cheat or to deceive the informant by the petitioner has been made out by the informant. The learned Advocate for the petitioner cited the decisions reported in 1999 BLD (AD) 128 = 4 BLC (AD) 167,26 DLR (SC) 17, 37 DLR 185 207, 39 DLR 214, 1992 BLD 284 = 45 DLR 660 wherein it has been decided that if from a reading of the FIR it comes up the allegations disclose civil liability then the proceeding can be quashed. The proceeding of GR Case No. 3735 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka is quashed. Mahamudur Rahman vs Md Matiur Rahman 62 DLR 367.
Section 561A—Neither the Senior Special Judge, nor the Divisional Special Judge considered the facts and materials available on record. Just the case has been proceeded on the basis of the police report which cannot be taken as basis unless it is supported by any materials on record which can be scrutinized at the time of taking of cognizance. Syeda Sajeda Chowdhury vs State 62 DLR 441.
Section 561A—A Court of law cannot proceed judicially on a mere statement made by police officer to the effect that a prima facie case under certain penal provision has been proved against the accused persons, without disclosing the allegation of fact constituting the offence. Such a statement, unaccompanied by the facts constituting the said offence, which is nothing but a mere opinion of police officer concerned, cannot be in any event, the basis of any judicial action by the Court. Sajeda Chowdhury vs State 62 DLR 441.
Section 561A—There is no legal impediment to file a criminal case even if a civil suit is pending on the selfsame allegations provided the ingredients of the offence are present Khandaker Abul Bashar vs State 63 DLR (AD) 79.
Section 561A—During investigation, a proceeding should not be stifled without allowing proper investigation into the allegation, save and except in a very rare type of cases which are found to be so preposterous that the allegations if accepted to be true in its entirety, does not constitute any offence. Habibur Rahman vs State 63 DLR 23.
Section 561A—The exercise of jurisdiction will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Interference even at an initial stage may be justified where the facts are so preposterous that even on the admitted facts no case can stand against the accused and that a further prolongation of the prosecution would amount to harassment to an innocent party and abuse of the process of the Court. Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 40.
Section 561A—Since there is no legal bar against the initiation, framing of charge, and continuation of the proceedings and, as such, the proceedings do not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Abeda Chowdhury vs State 63 DLR 118.
Section 561A—In the four corners of this case there is not an iota of allegation that the petitioner received any gratification from anybody , in connection with the awarding of the work to the concerned company or there is no ingredients of Section 5(1) of the aforesaid act being punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The concerned Officer of the Anti-Corruption Commission most hurriedly and at the behest of the then Government lodged this FIR without any sanction from the Anti- Corruption Commission violating the mandatory provisions of Section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 162.
Section 561A—Information——Written or oral information—Whenever any written or oral information is placed before any Officer-in-Charge of any Police Station it is his bounden duty to reduce the information into writing, in other words to record the FIR and set the information in motion forthwith and to initiate investigation. Hasura Begum vs Bangladesh DLR 195.
Section 561A—Police has acted with malafide intention at the behest of the then Four Parties alliance backed Government and did not hesitate to victimize eminent jurists of the country at the instance of the persons who is nothing but a busy body. We must expect specially from the higher police officers, who at least go through the laws and relevant decisions of the Apex Court of the country and must work for the interest of their real master, the people of the country. But it is unfortunate that no change has been achieved by
Section 561A—Criminal proceeding can be preceded independently of the civil suit. Ka Bi Ma Iftekhar Anam vs State 63 DLR 338.
Section 561A—Even non-disclosure of the cause of action cannot be a ground for quashing the proceeding to the great prejudice of the complainant who is entitle to prove his case on evidence. Sarwar Hossain Moni vs State 63 DLR 510.
Section 561A—Non disclosure of the date of receipt of notice under section 138(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a question of fact which will be decided at the time of trial. Noor Jamal vs State 63 DLR 531.
Section 561A—Since it is apparent that at a very initial stage i.e. right after the lodging of the FIR the petitioner obtained the Rule and stay before taking cognizance by a competent Court and, as such, an application under section 561A of the Code should be considered to be a premature one. The truth or otherwise of the allegation as against the accused-petitioner in the FIR could only be decided in the trial on evidence. Bahauddin Haider vs State 63 DLR 561.
Section 561A— The cheque was issued to discharge, either in whole or in part, a legally aiforceable debt or liability. The accused petitioner had never any debt or liability to discharge. It is the husband of the accused-petitioner who had the debt or liability to discharge. The liability or debt of the husband of the accused-petitioner cannot be thrust on to the shoulder of the accused-petitioner.’ Given this scenario, if the accused-petitioner is made liable for the debt or liability of her husband, that will go against the spirit of the mandate of section 138(1) of the Act. Shahnaj Begurn vs State 63 DLR 279.
Sections 561A & 145—Though two civil suits, instituted before the drawing up of the proceeding under section 145 CrPC, are pending, the civil Court has not passed any order regulating possession of the case land, nor a decree for possession or permanent injunction has been granted. In this view of the matter, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to act under section 145 CrPC is not ousted. Mozaffar Ahmed vs State 49 DLR 485.
Sections 561A & 145—When the Civil Court is already seized with the question of regulating possession of the land between the same parties, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in initiating the impugned proceeding under section 145 CrPC. Abul Bashar vs Hasanuddin Ahmed 51 DLR (AD) 14.
Sections 561A& 145-When the Civil Court is already seized with the question of regulating possession of the land between the same parties the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in initiating the proceeding under section 145 CrPC. Abdul Majid Mondal vs State 51 DLR 287.
Sections 561A & 195—In a proceeding where a forged document has been used the Court concerned should make the complaint.. The criminal Court should not take cognizance on a private complaint. The want of complaint under section 195 is incurable and the lack of it vitiates the whole trial. Wahida Khan vs Shahar Banoo Ziwar Sultan and State 48 DLR 286.
Sections 561A& 265C—We do not find any reason to quash the instant criminal case by involving our inherent jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC as the Code under section 265C provides for an alternative remedy. Salahuddin vs State 51 DLR 299.
Sections 561A, 439A & 439(4)—The Sessions Judge’s decision is not final in relation to a person who has not filed the revisional application to the Sessions Judge but has been impleaded therein as opposite party. He is free to go to any appropriate forum to challenge the Sessions Judge’s decision. But he cannot go to the High Court Division with another revisional application, as such an application—better known as second revision—is expressly barred by section 439. Though the High Court Division cannot entertain any application under section 439(1) from a decision of the Sessions Judge under section 439A, still it can interfere with the Sessions Judge’s order by invoking its inherent power for the limited purposes as set out in that, section namely, ‘to give effect to any order under the Code, orto prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice’. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Sections 561A & 439(4)-As there is nothing in the impugned order requiring to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, the revisional application is barred under the amended provision of section 439(4) of the CrPC. Anower Hossain vs Md Idrish Miah 48 DLR 295.
Section 561A, 498—It appears the petitioner was a Judge of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh this having a respectable status in the society. He has also acted as an Adviser of the then Caretaker Government headed by Professor lajuddin Ahmed. Complying the notice of the Anti- Corruption Commission the petitioner submitted his wealth statement before the Anti-Corruption Commission wherefrom the commission has invented a discrepancy in his wealth statement and also other corruption committed by him during his tenure as Adviser of the Caretaker Government. He has retired from the Appellate Division at the age of 65 years and now running 70 with ailing health as appears even from his gestures. His application for bail is allowed considering the fact that he may be harassed by the vested quarters before his surrender in the trial Court. Fazlul Haque vs State, ACC 60 DLR 648.
Section 561A & 439(A)—A party aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate can move to the superior Court against such order in which case the Superior Court may pass order to consider the materials for the prosecution but cannot direct the Magistrate to frame charge. Abul Kalam Azad vs State 60 DLR 470.
Sections 561A, 195(C), 344(1)—The proceeding of CR Case No. 2969 of 2004 under sections 468, 34 of the Penal Code, now pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, be postponed or stayed for a period of 1 year from the date of receipt of this judgment by the Court below. Meanwhile, both sides be directed to move jointly or separately in the First Court of Joint District Judge, Chittagong, to arrange for early disposal of OC Suit No. 110 of 2002 for Specific Performance of Contract based on Bainapatra dated 10-4-2001. Hanif vs State 60 DLR 634.