Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
[Act No. V of 1898]
Section-561A
Sections-366, 366A& 368 of the Penal and sections-4 & 10 of the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent punishment) ordinance-1983- Joinder of schedule and non-schedule offence- The Special Tribunal committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences schedule and nonschedule- Held: We are of the view that it would not be just and proper to quash the entire proceedings of the case.
Md. Biscuit and others Vs. The State 1 BLT (HCD)-78
Section-561A
A person accused in a criminal case can only prefer an application under section 561 A, for quashing the said proceeding if he becomes previously unsuccessful in his application either under section 265C or 241 A, otherwise his application under section 561A shall be premature.
Tarini Mohon Ghosh Vs Gobinda Prashad Das 3 BLT (HCD)-102
Section-561-A
Remand- Held: We are of the view that the trial with respect to the petitioner's is vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law and it should go back on remand to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the P. Ws. and to try the case with aspect to the petitioner only in accordance with law.
Abdul Khaleque @ Mona Vs. The State 5 BLT (HCD)-155
Section-561A
The first F. I. R. which was lodged at Shan Thana on 19.4.90 ended in charge-sheet dated 17.3.90 and the accused persons which included the present petitioners were on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 395/397 of the Code which ended in the conviction of petitioners. The second F. I. R. which lodged with Nalcity Police Station also ended in charge sheet which was submitted 12.89 and the present petitioners were paced on trial before the learned Special Tribunal under section 19(a) and (f) of the Arms Act. On application for quashing of the proceedings.
Held: It appears that the facts alleged in the present case are precisely those facts which have been alleged by the prosecution in the earlier dacoity case. During continuation of the investigation the I. O. recovered the rifle which was taken away by the petitioners and that was the alamat of the dacoity case. It is not the case of the prosecution that independent of the taken away of the rifle, the present fire arm was recovered from the possession of these petitioners. The recovery of the rifle by the Inspector was a part of the investigation of the dacoity case and there is no independent occurrence or acts in the recovery of the rifle- The second trial which is sought to be quashed is involving the offence punishable under section 19(a) of the Arms Act. But as this case occurred during the same transaction or arose from the same facts already decided by the Sessions Judge this cannot be allowed to be proceeded further as there is an express prohibition under section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from the prohibition against double jeopardy in this section. Article 35 of the Constitution also has the similar prohibition. So reading the provisions of section 403(1) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure together there can be no doubt that in the facts and circumstances of the case the second trial appeared to us to be unwarranted. Though the second trial that is the present proceeding is with respect of different offences that is recovery of firearms but that arose out of the same transaction which was the subject matter of the dacoity case which ended in conviction of the petitioners though the charge-sheet has been submitted under section 19(a) of the Arms Act but the fact remains that the recovered fire arms is the subject matter of the earlier case for which the petitioners ought to have been charge under the appropriate section of the Penal Code for possessing the alamats of dacoity which has not been done into a separate proceeding has been initiated by the prosecution- we hold that the proceeding is illegal. Relied On P. L. D. 1963 (Dacca) 661 1985 BLD (AD)323
Abdur Rashid Vs. The State 3 BLT (HCD) 242
Section-561A
Commission of offence by the respondent under Section 406 and 420 of the Penal Code- The case of the petitioner has been based upon a contract, mere breach of which
could not give rise to a criminal prosecution. The fact that the respondent subsequently
did not abide by his commitment to pay the balance amount of the money might create civil liability for him, but this fact will not fasten criminal liability on the respondent for the alleged offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code.
A. N. Emdaduddin Chowdhury Vs. Waysur Rahman & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-182
Section-561A
Allegation under Sections 406/420 of the Penal Code- The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon reading the petition of complaint rightly held that the petitioner could not impute any mensrea in the conduct of the respondents for refusing to pay money on the basis of alleged agreement and as such the alleged dispute being of civil nature no criminal proceedings lies thereupon.-High Court Division rightly quashed the proceedings.
S. B. Zaman Vs. Delip Kr. Shaha 4 BLT (AD)-231
Section-561A
Quashed the proceeding- Kotwali P. S. Case, under section 420/471/109 of the Penal Code pending then in the Court of a Magistrate, 1st class-police upon investigation submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections against the respondent No.1 and others. The High Court Division held that since the offence is relates to forgery of a document which has been given in evidence in the civil Court, cognizance of the offences alleged could not be taken except on the complaint of that court under section 195 (1) (C) Cr. P. C. and accordingly quashed the proceeding – petition is dismissed.
M. S. B. Ziwar Sultan Beyed Vs. M. W. Khan & Anr. 4 BLT (AD)-154
Section-561A
The admitted position being that the Civil court in Title Suit Nos. 216 of 1994 and 122 of 1996 long before initiation of the impugned proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. had passed orders on 4.10.95 a 23.11.96 respectively for maintaining status quo in respect of the disputed plot between the parties who are also parties the aforesaid proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the learned Judges of the Court Division rightly quashed impugned proceedings.
Hazi Abul Bashar Vs. Hasanuddin Ahme Ors 6 BLT (AD)-193
Section-561A
Anti-corruption officer lodged an F. R. with Gulshan P. S. on 27.9.88 in spite several dates fixed for police report and sanction order, the Government decided to proceed further against the accused petitioners and accordingly the accused. petitioners were discharged on 12.6.90-26.12.90 the I O submitted a charge- sheet along with a sanction order and accordingly the learned Magistrate under his order of the same day accepted the charge sheet and issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners along with proclamation and attachment of their properties treating the petitioners absconded from the case- when there was no proceeding pending, no ground invocation of section 87 or section 88 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the used petitioners are without jurisdiction should be quashed.
Maulana M. A. Mannan & Ors Vs The State 3 BLT (HCD)-71
Section-561A
Inherent power under section 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available not only to the High Court Division but also to all the Courts for purpose of doing justice by bringing in all the parties that are requested to be present for an effective final desposal of the case. The power of the Magistrate to add legal representative on the death of any of the parties in a proceeding under section 145 of the said Code during the enquiry stage as provided under section 145(7) of said Code would thus extend to a Criminal Revisions pending before the higher courts while examining the legality of an order passed in the proceeding section 145 of the Code and the said proceeding id not abate or become infructuous merely on the death of a particular parry during the proceeding whether at the enquiry stage or at a revisional stage. AIR 1924 Mad 149 relied on.
Abdul Ali & Ors Vs Md. Mesbauddin 3 BLT (HCD)-184
Section-561A
In the instant case, the petitioner and others alleged misappropriation of some C. I. sheet and Taka 46,000/-by the chairman and the petitioner's signature is proved to be genuine and other four petitioner's signature are proved to be false and thereby the petitioner alleged to have been commit forgery in the petition- Mere signing of the petition in anothers name who did not give authority sign without any intention to cause damage or injury to the public or any person and actually causing no injury or damage does not come within the definition of forgery .In that view of the matter cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and charge framed by him against the accused petitioner under section 465 of Cr. P. C. are illegal and proceeding of the case is liable to be quashed.
Abul Kashem Bhuiyan Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD) -109
Section-561A
The title suit was instituted for specific performance of contract by the opposite party. The defendants- petitioners contested the suit. The petition of complaint under section 406/109/ of Cr. P. C. was filed against the petitioners by the opposite party before the learned S. D. O. the learned S. D. O. recorded the initial statements- These statements do not constitute the offence alleged in the petition of complaint. Further the relevant question appears to be of civil nature- continuance of the impugned criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court- the Rule is made absolute.
A.F.M. Firojuddin Bhuiyan Vs Md. Yasin 2 BLT (HCD)-89
Section-561A
Insertion of 561A in 1923 by Act No. XVIII of 1923 due to the fact that the High Court were hesitant to exercise their inherent power to secure the ends of justice.
Abdul Jalil & Ors Vs The State 2 BLT (HCD)-90
Section-561-A
Allegation against a mutwalli about breach of trust.
Allegation against a mutwalli about breach of trust is subject to the scrutiny under section 52 of the Waqf Ordinance and since the legislature has set up a special forum for the determination of any matter connected with the audit and accounts of a waqf estate and if the accounts of a Waqf estate have been submitted to the proper authority all allegation including that of breach of trust must thereafter pass the initial scrutiny of the auditor under section 53 of the Waqf Ordinance before it can be even held prima facie that a mutwalli is guilty of breach of trust unless the auditor held so and that vague allegations against the mutwalli as to his failure to disburse dues to the beneficiaries or other act of misappropriation by him do not make out a case of breach of trust.
Md. Nozrul Islam Mollick Vs. Md. Khowaj Ali Biswas & Anr. 7 BLT (AD)-10
Section-561A
Charged under Section 406 and 420 of the Penal Code- in the instant case, the complainant has specifically alleged that the accused had fraudulently deceived him and thereby misappropriated Tk.5,00,000, which was clear from the conduct of the accused. It will be for the complainant to prove his allegations by evidence at the trial. He cannot be shut out at this stage by telling him that his remedy lay in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract.
Md. Rustam Ali Mataubbar @ Alam Vs. Md. Salauddin & Ors 7 BLT (AD)-132
Section-561A
Mizan and Sadek appeared before the Magistrate and after getting bail thej absconded, Shahidullah faced the trial but hf had not preferred any appeal under t| statutory provision. So they cannot invol the jurisdiction under section 561A of t! Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mizan &Ors. Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-232
Section-561A
The Principal of a private college could not be prosecuted without the concurrence of the Governing Body and that the investigation against him having been done by a police officer of the rank of a Sub-Inspector was not competent as contended by the petition Counsel.
Since the Principal of a private college was not an employee of the Government, there was no necessity of any investigation being held against him by a police officer above the rank of a sub-inspector. There is also no necessity of concurrence of Governing Body for investigation.
Jitesh Chandra Sarker Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-221
Section-561A
Offence underder section 420 Penal Code-alleged transaction in between complainant and the appellant is clearly admittedly a business transaction, appellant had already paid a part of the under the contract to the complainant, failure on the part of the appellant to pay complainant the balance amount under the does not warrant any criminal proceeding as the obligation under the contract is of nature. The learned Judges of the High Division were not justified in holding that petition of complaint having disclosed initial element of cheating, the case question cannot be quashed.
Dewan Obaidur Rahman Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-227
Section-561A
In the instant case the question of resorting to 561A Cr. P. C. does not arise because the Division Bench by the the Judgment and order dated 27.11.97 passed the order of discharge of the rule after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also finding no substance in the rule. Whether there was enough consideration of the facts and circumstances and whether there was really any substance in the rule, is a matter for the court of appeal or the Appellant Division to consider.
Md. Mozammel Haque Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD) -206
Section-561A
A proceeding cannot be quashed- The High Court Division observed that as the involvement of the petitioner transpired during the investigation stage the proceeding could not be quashed on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the FIR or, we add, on the ground that his name was included in the charge sheet on the recommendation of the public prosecutor.
Md. Abul Hossain Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-232
Section-561A
The investigation by an Assistant inspector does not per se become without jurisdiction and a proceeding cannot also be quashed merely because there is irregularity, if any, in the investigation.
Md. Abul Hossain Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD) -232
Section-561A
The prosecution case as set out in the petition of complaint has got prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged. The exact nature of the offence against the accused petitioners can only be thrashed out upon a trial. The prosecution should not be stifled when there is a prima facie case.
Gazi Mozibul Huq & Ors Vs. Abid Hossain Babu & Ors 7 BLT (AD)-305
Section-561A
Section-265C or 241A Cr. P. C. have nothing to do with quashing of a proceeding. Section 561A is an independent inherent power of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and this power can be exercised in case of abuse of process of Court and for securing the ends of justice and or to give effect to any order under the Code- the learned Judges ought to have entered into the merit of the case before refusing to quash the proceeding.
Latifa Akhter & Ors. Vs. The State & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)- 282
Section-561A
Nari-O-Shishu Case- In the present case, the facts that have been alleged in the F. I. R. and in the police report i.e. chargesheet might have committed an offence under some other Penal Law but not has committed any offence either under Section 9 (Kha) or Section 14 of the Act- framing of charge against the petitioners under section 9(Kha) and 14 of the Act is not legal and as such the continuation of the proceedings of Nari-O-Shishu case would amount to harassment to the petitioners and that also would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
Younus Ali & Ors. Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-46
Section-561A
A convict may invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Section 561A Cr. P. C. if he can make out a case of Corum non Judice of the trial court or that the facts alleged do not constitute any criminal offence or that the conviction has been based on no legal evidence or otherwise for securing the ends of justice.
Shahidul Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-142
Section-561A
Charge under sections 406/420 of the Penal Code- In the first information report the petitioner clearly stated that for business purpose he had paid Tk. 5,50,000/- to the accused and he get back Tk. 1,02,628/-nothing was stated in the F. I. R. that the accused respondent denied that he would not pay the balance amount to the petitioner. No allegation of initial deception has also been alleged in the F. I. R. the learned Judges of the High Court Division rightly quashed the proceeding.
Md. Rafique Vs. Syed Morshed Hossain & Anr. 5 BLT (AD)-57
Section-561A
The petitioner lodged the FIR alleging misappropriation of property by the respondents- Metropolitan Magistrate framed charge against all the respondents under section 408 of the Penal Code and under section 411 against respondent no. 2-The petitioner also filed a money suit against respondent No. 2- There has been claim and counter claim between the parties and admittedly money suits have been filed by each of them which are pending. It can not be said therefore, that the High Court Division was wrong in holding and acting on the premise that the disputes between the parties origin out of a joint work should be settled in the Civil Court and the Criminal Court should not take cognizance of such a dispute- the quashing of the criminal proceeding, in our opinion has not caused any miscarriage of justice in the special circumstances of this particular case.
Ansarul Haque Vs. Abdur Rahim & Ors 5 BLT(AD)-118
Section-561A
Whether the learned Judge's of High Court Division in disposing of Rule, issued under section 561A of the Com of Criminal Procedure, acted within their legal authority to issue direction upon the authorized officer of Khulna Development Authority to demolish the unauthorized construction in question although the matter is pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Khulna and awaiting decision in that regard.
Held: In Criminal Revision No. 972 1990 dismantlement of the alleged unauthorized construction of building not the subject matter for consideration the learned Judges of the High Division upon taking an erroneous vie the matter clearly misdirected themselves in issuing the impugned unwarranted din in the disposal of the said revision touching upon the very merit of a pending proceeding of an inferior court and as the impugned direction should have expunged in the interest of justice, from the aforesaid judgment in question.
Champak Ranjan Saha Vs. Development Authority & Ors 5 BLT (AD)-207
Section-561A
A criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials which are still not part of the materials for the prosecution.
Most Rahela Khatun Vs. Md. Abdul Hossain Ors 5 BLT (AD)-22
Section-561
A Prevention of Corruption Act, Section- 5A
In the instant case the investigation was held to be the Asstt. Inspector of police without any order of Magistrate and submitted charge sheet which is without jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner's learned Advocate.
Held: It appears that the investigation of the present case having been done by a Sub Inspector of Police is not a police report within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and as such the cognizance taken on the basis of it by the Sessions Judge, ex officio Special Judge, and framing of charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, (ex officio Special Judge) is illegal and without jurisdiction- The proceeding is quashed.
Md. Akhter Hossain Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD)-234
Section-561A
Proceedings of G. R. case pending in the Court of Thana Magistrate under section 366A/109- In the quashing proceeding, the High Court Division is only to see whether mere are materials on record to show that the allegations made in the First Information Report and the charge sheet do in fact constitute an offence and not beyond that -the charge sheet and other statements which are on record are only materials and the stage of taking evidence has not at all arisen. The observation of the learned Judges that “there are evidence" is absolutely erroneous and uncalled for.
Ali Akkas Vs. Enayet Hossain & Ors 6 BLT (AD)-135
Section-561A
Although quashing of a criminal proceeding at the stage of submission of charge sheet should not be generally permitted but in case unusual facts and circumstances of the case, question of u/s 561A can be allowed.
Khatun Vs. Mobasswin Ali & Ors 3 BLT (AD) -74
Section-561A
Respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR against petitioner No. 1 who was station master of kaugoan railway station and others alleging, inter alia, that his niece, age about 12/13 years was kept confined at the aforesaid railway station and that after committing rape on her, she had been cast away with the intention of killing her. The officer in charge of the railway police submitted final report whereupon the Upazila Magistrate by his order accepted the same and discharged the accused- the informant being aggrieved by the said order took a revision to the Sessions Judge, who by his order directed the Magistrate to make further enquiry into the matter. The accused then filed an application u/s561A Cr. P. C. in the High Court Division and a Division Bench by its impugned order discharged the rule upon observing that the learned Sessions Judge had correctly set aside the order of the Magistrate wrongly discharging the accused- Held: We are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly made the order for further enquiry in the case. His order could not, in any view, be said to be an order without jurisdiction. That being so, it must be said that the application of the petitioners before the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was wholly misconceived.
Md. Abdus Sabur Khan & Anr. Vs. Mr. Nurul Islam Shen & Anr. 3 BLT (AD)-205
Section-561A
(a) The FIR, the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. the charge sheet and the charge are not evidence. No. Comment on those materials is desirable. The court will only see if there are allegations of facts in those materials to connect the accused petitioner with the offence alleged or any offence.
Moudud Ahmed Vs. The State 3 BLT (AD)-224
(b) Under Article 58(2) now repealed of the Constitution, the question whether any and if so what, advice was tendered by the Council of Ministers or a Minister to the President shall not be inquired into in any court as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Held: In our view in this particular case it is premature to invoke Article 58(2) now repealed at this state- being in the facts of the case a mixed question of fact and law, it is not time yet to consider this constitutional question while the document is still not ready for observation with all its factual clothing's- we therefore see no reason to grant leave to consider a question of constitutional importance when the occasion for such consideration has not arisen.
Moudud Ahmed Vs. The State 3 BLT (AD) 224
Section-561A
Directing holding of Judicial inquiry.
From the materials on record it appears that the First Information Reports alleged that the occurrence took place inside the police control room where rape was allegedly committed by police personnel which part was not investigated by the Investigating Officer and it appears that two witnesses were kept under the control of the police and were produced from their custody. In this case there is specific allegation that the alleged offence of rape was committed by a police personnel who allegedly committed rape was let off and respondent No. 2 has been charge sheeted. It is a case of public interest where there is allegation of overt act against the police personnel posted in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and in the interest of transparency and visible administration of justice there is no impediment to a judicial inquiry as ordered by the High Court Division. The High Court Division has not committed any wrong in directing holding of judicial inquiry which will be in addition to the police report already submitted.
The State Vs. Seemzahur & another 8 BLT (AD)-69
Section-561A
Respondent no. 1 who is an Advocate is neither the informant nor an accused nor a witness in the case.
Locus standi—This section provided that the High Court Division in its inherent power may make such orders 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 ends of justice. This section emphasized that the Supreme Court in its High Court Division has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders for ends of justice and for that purpose to entertain applications not contemplated by the Code. The inherent power can be exercised for either of the 6 purposes mentioned in the section although the purpose stated are illustrative, exhaustive. The inherent power of the court is undefined and indefinable. It is well set that the paramount consideration exercising power under section 561A of Code of Criminal procedure is that such order will prevent abuse of the process any court or otherwise it would secure ends of justice. We hold that no illegality and wrong have been committed by the High Court Division in exercising its inherent power which has been initiated by respondent No. 1.
The State Vs. Seemazahur & Another 8 BLT (AD-69
Section-561A
Complainant filed a petition of complaint against the accused appellant under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment Act, 1994—the subsequent allegations will not save the limitation—the requirement under the law is that the complaint has to be filed within one month of date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 impugned proceeding is quashed.
M. Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam Anr 8 BLT (AD)-90.
Section-561A
Petitioner has been implicated on the basis the confession of a co-accused—In the supplementary charge sheet complicity of petitioner along with principal offenders found and consequently charge was found by the Tribunal Judge for abetment the offence. It is only at the trial stage the value of the materials on record could be considered.
Rahman Vs. The State 8 BLT (AD)-176
Section-561A
Case under sections 406/420 of the Penal Code and read with section 156)8) of the Customs Act—allegation that the petitioner purchased a car from the Embassy of South Korea but without paying the Government and taxes, he using the car—Held: If any provision is therein the Customs Act for levying any tax or customs duty upon the petitioner for purchasing the car that may be brought into action under that Act and not the Criminal Law or Penal Code, either under Section 420 or 406 of the Penal Code.
Golam Sarwar Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-115
Section-561 A
CR. case under Sections-467/468/471— the complaint disclose that the accused petitioners have obtained the disputed document in the year 1978, as stated above and they have also got a deed of rectification of the original sale deed in the year, 1990 and in the said Civil Suit the complainant tried to become a party. But after failure to do so, he did not take any further step whatsoever in the higher forum to get him added in the Civil Suit and he himself also did not file any Civil Suit. Another very important aspect of the case is that the complainant himself has. obtained a document of purchase in respect of some portion of the case land on 11.02.1990. So he is a later purchaser and the document of the accused persons being of 1978, it is an earlier one —Held : Under the aforesaid circumstances as we understand, only civil suit can resolve this legal conflict finally effectively and we find prima facie that the criminal liability cannot be pushed upon the accused-petitioners and consequently, trial if held against the accused-petitioners it will be an abuse of process of law and Court.
Moulana Abdul Hakim @ Abdul Makim &Ors. Vs. Md. Siddiqur Rahman Advocate & Anr. 8 BLT (HCD)-207
Section-561A
In a criminal case firstly, any allegation whether in the FIR or in the charge sheet, must constitute an offence within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure, secondly, the allegation must be based on materials on record and not on mere surmises or suppositions. The process of law must not be used as the engine of harassment. If it is found to be so abused it will be imperative on the part of the High Court Division to interefere and quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Md. Shokrana Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-299
Section-561A
Whether High Court Division can record an order of compounding the offence which is non compoundable, for securing ends of justice.
Held : The Case was registered under Section-366A of the Penal Code, a non-compoundable offence. We have noticed that in the FIR the informant stated that his daughter was 17 years old and was a student of second year of Higher Secondary Certificate. In course of investigation of the case, the victim made a statement under Section-164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she stated that she was 18 years old. In the Kabinnama, her age has been mentioned as 19 years old. The occurrence took place of 16.11.1993 and at present, the victim is about 25 years old. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that victim Nasima Aktar was not below 18 years old at the time of occurrence and therefore, the allegations made in the FIR do not attract Section-366A of the Penal Code.
We have also noticed the statement of the informant made before us that his daughter Nasima Aktar is now an expectant mother. Since the informant, father of victim, has accepted the marriage condisering the welfare of his daughter, although the offence charge in non-compoundable, we feel that the ends of justice will be secured if we accept the prayer made by the informant and record an order of compounding the offence. On the contrary, if we reject the prayer entail unnecessary harassment to the parties. Law encourages composition of offences and in the instant case we feel it necessary for carrying out the other provisions of the Code and also for doing justice for prevention abuse of the process of the court by invoking the inherent powers of the court —Accordingly we accept the application filed by the informant for compounding the offence and it is allowed for the interest of justice.
Shajedul Alam Chowdhury Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-256
Section-561 A
Complainant's case under Section 313/109— complainant made an application to the Magistrate for taking cognizance but the Magistrate rejected that prayer—the] learned Sessions Judge allowing the criminal revision setting aside the order of the Magistrate and directed to taka cognizance against the accused petitioners -| Held: The order of the Sessions Judge directing to take cognizance is not correct one and this portion of the order is liable to be set aside and qushed.
A Rou f& Ors. Vs. The State & Anr. 8 BLT (HCD)-303
Section-561 A
In the instant case on receipt of the petition of complaint the learned Magistrate examined the complainant on oath under Section-200 of the Cr. P.C. and thereafter in exercise of his powers under Section-202 of the Code directed an investigation by the police. Only on receipt of the report by the police he came to the conclusion that the offence as alleged in the petition complaint is triable by the Special Tribunal under the Special Powers Act —Held : this case there was no illegality irregularity on the part of the learned Magistrate in taking steps under Section 200/202/190 of the Code on receipt of the petition of complaint and since he sent the records of the case along with the police report to the Special Tribunal, the Special Tribunal also rightly took cognizance of the offence under Section-27(l)(2) of the Special Powers Act—the petition under Section-561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived.
Golam Rahman Vs. Md. Bazlur Rahman & 8 BLT (HCD)-258
Section-561 A and Representation of the People's, order 1972 Article-74 read with General Clauses Act, 1897 Section-6(c)
It is on record that the election was held on 27.02.1991. The time limit for submission of the return was within 65 days from the date of publication of the result of the said election which the petitioner did not comply. But by subsequent amendment the time limit for submission of the return of election expenditure was made 15 days in place of 65 days and punishment was also enhanced to seven years of imprisonment giving effect to the said amendment on and from 6th of January, 1991 although the amendment has been made much later by the Act No. 10 of 1991—Held : In our view the issuance of notice and service of the same upon the Petitioner for submitting the report and directing to show cause was redundand when the law itself very specifically provides time limit for submission of report within 65 days—the petitioner should be tried under the law which was prevailent at time of commission of the alleged offence but not under the amended law.
Saidur Rahman Khan Mohon Vs. The State 8 BLT (HCD)-262
Section-516A
Interim custody of property — under this section the Magistrate has no power to investigate or to decide the ownership of rival claimants of the property. The only consideration is of possession of the property at the time of commission of the alleged offence, has to be gone into and decided before passing an order for the custody of the said property. Where the question of the custody of property like vessel in the present case, we are of the opinion that Magistrate instead of entering into investigating the title of the rival claimants, it is his duty to decide expeditiously who is the person prima facie entitled to possession thereof and handover its possession to him for avoiding great loss that has sustained when it was kept unused, for sustained when it was kept unused, for ensuring the vessel in the same condition as it was at the time of its seizure and to produce before the court as and required. We are further of the opinion that no property should be given to a person who is not entitled to its possession at the time of its recovery and who has not committed any offence in respect thereof to make its possession unlawful.
Md. Omar Ali. Vs. Abdul Malek & Ors. 9 BLT (HCD)-347
Section-561A
After submission of charge sheet complainant filed a Naraji Petition — complainant petitioner is the full brother of the deceased and he claims that he along with his sons are eye witnesses of the occurrence —Second proviso to sub-section(l) and proviso in sub section 2A of Section 202, where it appears to the Magistrate upon receiving the complaint that the offence is exclusively tradable by the Court of Sessions, he may postpone the issue of process and he shall call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath for ascertaining truth or falsehood of the complaint. But in this case, the learned Magistrate has not followed this mandatory provision of law and rejected the petition on an erroneous ground which is not sustainable in law. The learned Magistrate even did not register a complaint case after receiving the Naraji petition which was obligatory on his part to register the same and ought to have proceeded with the case as a complaint case. There is, therefore, non application of judicial mind in dismissing the Naraji petition—Impugned order is hereby quashed.
Abdur Razzaque Vs. The state 9 BLT (HCD)-263
Section-561A
Allegation under Section 406/420 of the Penal Code—Held : We have perused the F.I.R we find from the F.I.R that the accused petitioner took loan of Tk. 1,64,000.00 from the informant in 3 installments as loan for his business purpose. There is nothing in the FIR that at the time of taking loan in the petitioner made any promise with the complainant that he will return the money within a specific time or of date and we also do not find any allegation of inducement for getting the loan money from the complainant. Rather we find from the FIR that the accused took the money from the informant as loan for business purpose as such in the allegation we do not find any ingredient of instrustment or that the money was taken with any specific promise or inducement. Thus in the absence of such definite allegation it cannot be held that taking of money as loan and subsequent failure or refused by itself shall constitute criminal offence.
Md. Abdul Mannan Sarker Vs. The State 9 BLT (HCD)-417
Section-561A
Sections 109/111 of the Penal Code—it is well settled principle that a person who abets the actual perpetration of the crime at the very time when it is committed is a 'principal of the second degree, under Section 109 the Penal Code, This is, applicable to the accused importer. There is however, 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 abatement is applicable to the accused guarantor.
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Moham Habib & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-65
Section-561A read with Nari-O-Shishu (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain. 1995
Proceeding is not legally maintainable provisions of Nari-O-Shishu Ain is enacted for special cases in special circumstances, in contradiction to general rules of the law laid down as applicable generally to all cases with which the general law deals and therefore is a special law, It must be given prospective operation. For giving retrospective construction to a statute its language imperatively and clearly require so. This enactment came into force on 17.07.1995 and the occurrence of the case took place on 12.05.1995. Therefore it cannot be said that this case will be governed by Nari-O-Shishu Ain, 1995 with retrospective effect.
Abul Kalam Khan Vs. Reaz Morshed & Anr. 10 BLT (HCD)-104
Section-561A
The Complainant-Opposite Party defamed for the publication felt defamed for the publication of a rejoinder made by public Relation Department, Bangladesh Krishi Bank which was published in Daily Janakantha to a report by a reporter of Janakantha—Held : In the Rejoinder creation of the two Power of Attoryneys through acts of forgery and endeavour on the part of sponsor of Salt Refinery Industry to take loan from Bank been stated and the said statements by way of Rejoinder had been published in the paper on good faith for the protection of interest of Bangladesh Krishi Bank and that also, for public good. Ninth Exception to Section 499 of The Penal Code is very much attracted and the Rejoinder satisfied Ninth Exception and the publication of Rejoinder does not fall within the definition of defamation as given in Section 499 of the Penal Code.
Bangladesh Krishi Bank Vs. The State 10 BLT (HCD)-112
Section-561A
There is no legal bar in entertaining two different cases filed by two different persons in respect of the same offence. In that circumstances the procedure is that both the cases are to be tried simultaneously by the same court— the learned Magistrate has committed illegality by not taking any action on the complaint in respect of the same offence.
Most. Panbilashi Nessa Vs. The State & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-380
Section-561A
In the Rejoinder no statement had been made nor any accusation has been mounted against Complainant-opposite party nor it was stated that the Complainant opposite party had been the author of all the acts of forgery in respect of creation of Power of attorneys and endeavours of taking loan on the basis of Power of Attorneys. The Rejoinder had been made by Public Relation Department, Bangladesh Krishi Bank and the petitioner as Managing Director of the Bank at the relevant time cannot be, also personally posted with the liability for the, said publication. On this, also, the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be allowed to be continued.
S.A Chowdhury Vs. The State 10 BLT (HCD)-381
Section-561A
Charged under Section 25B(2) of the Special Powers Act—Held: We have perused the FIR wherefrom it is evident that the items seized by the police personnel from the possession of the petitioners are nothing but be of any use other than personal by the petitioners or by the members of the family of the petitioners and it further appears that the seized goods, under no stretch of imagination can be conceived to be the goods imported for any business or commercial purpose. It further appears that the petitioners had made positive assertions in their application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal procedure to the effect that they have traveled to India with valid travel document and had crossed the border with those goods upon compliance of all the legal formalities both by the Customs and Immigration authorities at Beanpole — the instant proceeding amount to be an abuse process of the court which is liable to be quashed for securing ends of justice.
Sanker Saha & Ors. The State 10 BLT (HCD)-397
Section-561A
Principles exercising inherent jurisdiction
The expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction upon High Court Division and the alleged "abuse of the process of law" and "the ends of justice" can only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 561A of The Code in cases where there are no express provision empowering high Court Division to achieve the said object.
Dawlat Shah Vs. The State 10 BLT (HCD)-460
Section-561A
Complaint under Section 26 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Order) Act, 1965—Charge under Section 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969—It appears that the Labour Court directed the accused to pay the benefits without specifying the amount of benefits entitled by the complainants. According to the accused, they were given entire termination benefits on calculation — Held : The complainants may take recourse to such remedies when the entitlement of complainants are ascertained, Since the Labour Court passed general order conferring termination benefits, it has no Jurisdiction to determine the quantum under section 26 of the employment of Labour (Standing orders) Act, 1965,. It can punish an offender for refusal or failure to comply with a definite order of ascertained sum. The complainants in the instant cases instead of proceeding under Section 26 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, which is the only provision applicable in their cases made the complaints under different sections including Section 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which is altogether different and the said provision is not at all applicable in the face and circumstances the case. Even, if it is assumed that proceedings were legally initiated under Section 55 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, although it were required to be initiated under Section 26 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Order) Act, 1965, for the reasons as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose an offence either under Section 2(9
of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act or under Section 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Daily Banglar Bani Vs. M. Abul Kashem Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-128
Section 561A
Allegation U/S 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act — it appears that against F.R. T the informant filed Naraji petition against the accused petitioner no. 1 Md. Akhter and accused petitioner No. 5 Mister and 2 others namely Md. Abul and Alam in spite of that the learned Special Tribunal took cognizance against the accused petitioner Nos. 2-4 and 6-8 against whom the informant had no allegation in the Naraji petition — Held : In this view of the fact, think that the ends of justice would be met if the order of taking cognizance by learned Special Tribunal is modified striking out the name of the accused petitioner 2-4 and 6-8 from the impugned order.
Md. Akhter & Ors The State & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-77
Section-561A
Ground of delay -We are of the view a quashing of proceedings of criminal case the ground of delay is made general Shall certainly destroy whole concept of admiinistration of criminal justice and finally will lead to anarchy. In this view of the matter we are of the view that the High Division was in serious error in ordering the delay as the ground for quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case.
Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Amjad Ali Mridha & Ors 12 BLT (AD)-190
Section-561A
Proceedings under sections 420/406 of the Penal Code— The whole allegation as depicted in the complaint is an out outcome ofa typical partnership business transaction which is absolutely civil in nature and as such continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner on that score would certainly tantamount to abuse of court and law and as such it should be quashed.
Dr. S. Asraf Ali Vs Md. Ahsan Habib and Ors 12 BLT (HCD)-252
Section-561A
Charged u/s 409/109 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947—We are of the view that when the Tender Committee forwarded the matter to the Ministry with the opinion that the first lowest Tenderer stood disqualified for non-fulfillment of the condition of the Tender schedule. the Respondents (the Minister and Secretary) did not commit any offence, agreeing to issue work order to the second lowest Tenderer, more so, after bargaining the rate being fixed to 1.49 US dollar in lieu if 1.53 US dollar quoted by the second lowest tenderer previously. From the First Information Report it appears that contents even if accepted in its entirety no prima facie case is disclosed and as such we are of the view that the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order quashing the proceeding.
The State Vs. Mohammad Nasim & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)161
Section-561A
in the instant case the First Information Report was lodged on 7.9.1995 and the Police report (charge sheet) has been submitted on 12.12.1995 i.e. after 17.7.1995 the date of repeal-Held; In the premises we direct that the accused petitioner is required to be tried under the provision of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995 and not under the provision of repealed law i.e. the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983.
Abul Hashem Vs. The State 13 BLT (AD)-184
Section-561A
The F.I.R. on the face of it discloses a criminal offence and the case is still under investigation. So it cannot be legally interfered with at this earlier stage and the proceedings cannot be quashed.
The State Vs. Md. Omar Faruque and Ors. 14 BLT (AD) 62
Section – 561-A
Allegation under Section 295A of the Penal Code – framing of charge against the accused petitioners under section 295A of the Penal Code on an application by an individual is not sustainable in law and as such the proceeding against the accused-petitioners under section 295A of the Penal
Md. Sahabuddin & Ors. Vs. MM. Nurul Huda & Ors. 14 BLT (HCD)-130
Section – 561A
Suo Moto Rule issued on 29.8.2004 on a news report dated August 27, 2004 captioned published in daily Pratham Alo-“???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????” ??????? ???? ????????? ???!- according to the finding of the Tribunal itself impugned order for discharge of the accused Officer-in-Charge obtained from the Tribunal fraudulently by suppressing the finding and decision of the High Court Division dated 13.4.2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3202 of 2004 is prima facie unlawful, an abuse of the process of the court and not sustainable.
The State Vs. Md. Zahangir Alam 14 BLT (HCD)-156
Section – 561 – A
A proceeding can be quashed only on reference to the FIR/complaint, nor on any other materials. If the FIR or petition of complaint do not fix the accused with the offence disclosed in the FIR then the accused need not wait till submission of the police report, quash of the same.
Md. Hasan Vs. State 14 BLT (HCD)-195
Section-561-A
Release of a detenu from illegal detention
Since there is specific provision engrafted in section 491 of The Code Court for the redress of the grievance of petitioner he could not have invoked this Court's inherent jurisdiction postulated in section 561A of The Code in challenging the detention of his father Dr. Mohammad Asadullah AI-Galib and in having a direction for release of his father from the custody. The release are untenable in law and those cannot be granted.
A.A. Sakib Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)-402
Section-561A
The prayer in respect of recording a direction upon opposite party to allow the petitioned and his mother to meet and discuss with Dr. Mohammad Asadullah Al-Galib and allow Dr. Mohammad Asadullah Al-Galib to sign Vokalatnama and to consult with his advocate to be appointed by him in connection with cases herein he is undo indictment is accepted and allowed.
A. A. Sakib Vs. The State 14 BLT (HCD)-402
Section -561A
In the instant case, though no cognizance was taken by the sessions judge but he has initiated a new proceeding being Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 475 of 2002 which is malafide, illegal and without jurisdiction not sustainable in law.
Md. Nurul Amin Vs. Zahirul Islam & Ors 14 BLT (HCD)-462
Section -561-A
Since the application under section 561A was filed when other remedy was available hence the instant rule is not maintainable a contended by the learned Counsel of the investigating officer -Shah Alam Babu who appeared before the trial court and, having been convicted, filed the appeal under the name of Sundar Babu alias Shah A Babu, we find that the evidence manifestly against his being involved in the incidence, in particular since the informant and the other eyewitnesses categorically stated that the person standing in the was not the person accused by them in case. P.W.5, who is an independent uninterested eyewitness, did not identify him in the dock although he was very present at the time when PW5 deposed Court. We find no other evidence, material to connect the person standi the dock, who made his appearance in the name Sundar Babu alias Shah Alam Babu, with the murder of Gazi Liakat Hossain. As such we are left with no other alternative but to find that the person standing in the dock, who faced the trial as Sundar Babu alias Shah Alam Babu and was convicted as Sundar Babu, is not the person who was accused by the informant and hence he is to be relieved of the charges leveled against him.
The State Vs. Shahid Javed Gaira @ Garib Miah & Ors 14 BLT (HCD)-502
Section-561A
The High Court Division quashed the proceeding holding the complainant petitioner, a private party, lodged the complaint before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dhaka against the accuused respondent No. 1 under sections 471 and 467 of the Penal Code alleging that he, along with others, have forged the affidavit dated 28.6.1999 and filed the same in the Title Suit No. 171 of 1999 of the 6th Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka which has been marked as exhibit No.3 in the said suit and since the petition of complaint/ First formation Report contains allegations of filing and use of forged document in the proceedings of a suit, the initiation of the criminal proceeding for forgery at the instance of the complainant petitioner without taking recourse of the procedure provided in section 195(l)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is barred -Held; We are of the view that the High Court Division on it consideration of the materials on record and considering the provision of section 195(l)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arrived at a correct decision.
Kazi Forhad Hossain Vs. Md. Golam Mustafa Sarwar 15 BLT (AD)-233
Section-561A
The exercise of inherent power under section 561A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be limited to the objects detailed in the section itself but the same is not, appears to be exhaustive but remained to be undefined and indefinite and must be exercised with utmost caution lest under the garb of exercise of inherent jurisdiction, a great injustice is not perpetuated at the initial stage of the case when as a matter of fact, there is no evidence before the Court in the case except certain allegation. The Court is obviously could not shut its eyes to the apparent infirmities in the case and as such in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, such exercise of jurisdiction becomes imperative in order to avoid any unnecessary harassment to the accused under the garb of dispensation of justice. But in doing so the Court could not enter into merit as to the allegation at the initial stage soon after the investigation unless the illegality is apparent on the face of the allegation which do not constitute an offence or there is legal bar to proceed.
The State Vs. Md. Mominullah (Mohan) 15 BLT (AD) 251
Section-561A
Allegation under Sections 406/420/34 of the Penal Code -the appellant being admittedly the Managing Director and a director of the company of which the complainants are directors and in the course of official business alleged to have issued cheques which amount was allegedly misappropriated by the appellants, could not be legally termed as misappropriation or breach of trust of the fund of the company for a criminal prosecution under section 406/420 of the Penal Code and that the remedy, if there be any is one of accounting and mense profit for which a civil suit for accounts is the appropriate remedy and hence the prosecution of the appellant under section 406/420 of the Penal Code is not maintainable parse and accordingly, is liable to be quashed -Held; the impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. The complainant party including the company may proceed against the accused-appellants for the allegations in the petition of complaint in the appropriate form and in accordance with law.
Md. Anarul Islam & Ors Vs. The State & Anr 15 BLT (AD)-269
Section-561A
To prevent the abuse of the Process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.
Allegation under Sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of Act 11 of 1947 and the case was under investigation – Facts are that the respondent took the money for fifty one bore holes relating to topographic survey by bill Nos. 1 and 2 respectively dated 11.03.1994 and 19.05.1994 and she took the same amount of money for the same work by bill No.3 dated 30.06.1994. -Respondent's case is that bill Nos.1-3 are all running bills and in bill No.4, the respondent clearly stated that inadvertently sub-soil testing was included in bill No.3 and regretted for the inadvertence and further requested the authority to adjust the amount from bill No.4. The learned Counsel further submits that after completion of entire work of the project when the final bill would be submitted, the authority (IPSA) would be at liberty to adjust/deduct any excess amount if paid to the respondent in making payment against running bills -Held we are of the view that no prima facie 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 authority (IPSA) specially bill No.4 d 29.10.1994 lodged the first information re on 31.12.1994 -we consider it a fit case interfere at the stage of police investigation prevent the abuse of the process of the co and to secure the ends of justice.
The State Vs. Mrs. Lailun Nahar Ekram 15 BLT (AD) 185
Section -561A
Allegation under Section 406/420 of Penal Code -Held; in absence of a definite allegation of inducement for getting money from a particular source or person and refusal to repay the same, the proceeding of the case is an abuse of process of the Court and also harassment to the petitioner.
Md. Omar Faruque Vs. The State & Anr 15 BLT (HCD) 318
Section 561 A
Credibility of evidences are beyond the reasonable doubt -the Petition of complaint was lodged after 2 and 1/2 months and there was marriage and the doctor found that there was no sign of rape and she is habituated with sexual intercourse. Under these facts a circumstance we find reason to interfere into the judgment and order of conviction dated 1.7.2002 passed by the learned Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Damon Tribunal. Chandpur in Nari-O-Shishu Nirjaton Case No. 38 of 2001 and we find cogent reason to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Firoz Chokder Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)85
Section 561(A)
Allegation U/S 406/420 of the Penal Code on perused of the petition of complaint there is specific reference of the award the Arbitration Board –Held: on perusal of the award, we find that the Board did not come to any finding that the accused petitioner mis-appropriate Tk. 86,00,232/-rather from the decision arrived at by the Arbitration Board we find that the Board directed both the parties to settle the respective claims after accounting. When claims of the parties are to be settled on the basis of accounting, the liability shall be a Civil liability. In the instant case, as we find that both the parties submitted their claim before the Arbitration Board, decision of the ^Arbitration Board is binding of both the parties. Any failure on the part of a party will be a civil liability and cannot be considered as a Criminal offence. So, we find that continuation of the proceedings shall be abuse of the process of the court and as such the same is liable to be quashed.
Abu Zafar Tipu Vs. Syed Abu Siddique 15 BLT (HCD) 93
Section-561A read with Section-367 and 369
In the instant case in a revisional application U/S 561A of Cr. P. C. being Criminal Misecellanceous case was taken up for hearing by the High Court Division none appeared and the same was discharged — Held: The proper forum against such judgment and order would have been an appeal before the Appellate Division and not an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Md. Mozammel Hoque Vs. Sayedur Rahman & anr. 11 BLT (AD)-9
Section 561A read with 498
I view of the materials on record order of High Court Division enlarging the amendent, Saber Hossain Chowdhury son of Hedayet Hossain Chowdhury of 5, Paribagh, Police Station Ramna, District Dhaka on ad-interim bail calls for no interference by this Division and accordingly the order of the High Court division enlarging the respondent on ad-interim bail is maintainable.
The State Vs. Saber Hossain Chowdhury 11 BLT (AD)-45
Section-561A
Read with Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, 1992 Sections-4 and 2(2)
Ingredients of "terrorism offence" being prima facie present in the allegation of damage to the transport vehicle (Bus), quashment of the proceeding cannot be sought for.
Shahabuddin & Ors Vs. The State 2 BLT (AD)-13
Section -561A read with Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order, 1972
It appears that the learned sessions judge on receipt of the complaint petition from the former public prosecutor Mr. Md. Zahirul Islam opposite party No. 1 and after taking evidence on oath of the said complainant he has initiated criminal Misc. case No. 475 of 2002 on 1.8.92 and directed the accused petitioner to submit attested copies of the educational certificate since from S.S.C. to LL.B Examination which he is not authorized to do under the provisions of section 32 of Bangladesh legal practitioners and Bar Council order, 1972.
Md. Nurul Amin Vs. Zahirul Islam & Ors 14 BLT (HCD) 462
Section 561-A read with Narcotics Control Act, 1990 Section-16(9)
The Provision of Sub-section (9) is intended to grant immunity to addicted person under the treatment of the physician or Madaka Sakti Niramaya Kendra for treatment or surrendered by father, mother or head of the family or person on whom he is dependent is entitled to immunity from the charge under section 9, 10 and 22 of the Act for use of narcotics and no complaint shall be instituted against him in any court.
Md. Didarul Alam Vs The State 14 BLT (HCD)181
Section-561 A, 4(h), 200
Without examining the complainant the Magistrate directed the O C to investigate the case treating the petition of complaint as FIR and the police submitted charge sheet after investigation. The case not being
proceeded with as a complaint case and charge sheet being submitted by the police on the basis of F I R it cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction and question of quashment of proceeding for non
examination of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C does not arise.
Yakub Ali Vs. The State 3 BLT (AD)-121
An Abuse of the Process of the Court
We find that the complainant- respondent No. 2 being the uncle of the two minors of appellant No. 1 failed to be the guardian of the minors. In order to take revenge the complainant has started this criminal proceeding against a helpless widow by alleging, what has already been decided to be false, that she remarried and by abusing the process of court appellant No. 1 and others are being harassed and humiliated.
Latif Akhter & Ors. Vs. The State & Ors. 7 BLT (AD) -282.