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 Mazhzder & ors. 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 b 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 impropet 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 deLayd.
Md. Shamsuddin Vs. State 40 DR (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—
Pririciples 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. Shamsud4in 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 duty 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 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 56 1A—
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.
Mofazzal Hossain Mollah & ors. Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 175.
Section 561A—
Quashing of criminal proceeding—The sword of prosecution hanging over the head of accused petitioners for nearly 10 years without any fault on their part and they are suffering economically, mentally and socially—It is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court and for that reason the proceeding is to be quashed in respect of them.
Md. Mosharraf Hossain Vs. State 42 DLR 213.
Section 561A—
In a proceeding under this provision the court should not be drawn in an enquiry as to the troth 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 Omar 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 Amanutlah 45 DLR 263.
Section 561A—
Stay of proceeding—In the facts of the case as in point of time the civil suit was instituted before the filing of the HR and the questioned documents in their originals are yet to be produced and examined by the civil Court. The criminal proceeding where the documents are claimed as forged, may, in the interest of justice, be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit.
Zakir Hossain and others Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 102.
Section 561A—
It 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 Hoque 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 a 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 (I) (b) is a punitive provision to come into play immediately after the lapse of time for surrender. The contention that the detention orders 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 295Af298/ 109 Penal Code out of which, to initiate and continue with the proceeding, compliance of the provision of section 196 CrPC in respect of offence under section 295A Penal Code is necessary but no compliance is necessary in respect of offences under sections 258/109 Penal Code. Interference by way of quashing the entire proceeding is not called for.
Name of the petitioner finds mention in the petition of complaint but on a reading of the same his complicity with commission of offence could not be traced out. The proceeding as against him is liable to be quashed in terms of the principles enunciated in 28 DLR (AD) 38.
Jamir Sheikh Vs. Md. Fakir 43 DLR 417.
Section 561A—
Right of heirs of deceased complainant top with the complainant’s case—The complainant in the criminal case under section 447 claimed ownership and possession of the land in question. On his death during the pendency of the revision case arising out of the matter his wife having stepped into his shoes so far as it relates to his properties, she is required to be brought on record to protect her interest in the land.
Dr. Md. Abdul Baten Vs. State 43 DLR 60.
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 wider this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the 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.
Hossain Mohammad Ershad Vs. State 43 DLR 150.
Section 561A—
Allegation made in the— FIR having not disclosed any offence of extortion as defined, 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 person’s 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 H1gh 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 561A 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—
Inherent jurisdiction—it is not an alternative jurisdiction—Inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings should not be invoked where some other remedy is available. This is not an alternative jurisdiction nor an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or provided by the Code itself. This power cannot be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
MM Rahmatullah Vs. State 44 DLR 576.
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 Shaflul Azam and others Vs. Director of Labour and others 44 DLR 582.