1
Crl. Rev. No.140-2024
Form No: HCJD/C
JUDGMENT SHEET.
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,
ISLAMABAD.
Criminal Revision No.140- of 2024
Tassadaq Hanif
Versus
The State
Petitioner’s by : Raja M. Aleem Abbasi, Mr. Muhammad
Ahsan Bhoon, Mr.Muhammad Shoaib
Shaheen, Mr. Riasat Ali Azad, Mr. Haroon
ur Rasheed, Mr. Hafeez Ullah Yaqoob, Mr.
Muhammad Rustam Malik, Mr. Muhammad
Waqas Malik, Ch. Abdur Rehman Bajwa,
Mr. Afrasiab Ahmad Rana, Mr. Saad
Abdullah Bhatti, Mr. Shafique-ur-Rehman
Khattak, Mr. Muhammad Asif Gujjar, Ch.
Ahmed Nawaz, Ms. Nusrat Parveen, Mr.
Zahid Mehmood Raja, Mr. Muhammad Bilal
Raza, Syed Abaid Ullah Shah,
Mr.Muhammad Bilal Mughal, Mr. Khalid
Mehmood Khan, Rana Ali Raza, Barrister
Malik Talha Ahmed, Shafqat Abbas Tarar
and Mujahid Islam Asif, Advocates.
Respondent’s by : Mr. Adnan Ali and Mr. Muhammad Wajid
Munir, Deputy District Public Prosecutors.
Rana Hassan Abbas, ADPP.
Mr. Nasir Ahmad Shah, State Cousel with
Inspector Ibrar Hussain, P.S. Ramna,
Islamabad.
Date of decision : 06.02.2025
AAMER FAROOQ, C.J. - The petitioner is one of the accused in
case FIR No.99 dated 08.02.2021 under sections 147, 149, 395, 228, 506,
452, 427, 341, 353, 186 PPC read with section 7 of ATA, 1997 registered
with Police Station Ramna, Islamabad. In this regard, report under section
173 Cr.P.C. was filed on 28.05.2021 and there-after the case was kept
pending for framing of the charge. The petitioner moved an application
under section 265-K Cr.P.C. for acquittal on the basis that the case is
2
Crl. Rev. No.140-2024
pending for the last about four years without any progress and also that
there is no case to answer. In this regard, a categoric stance was taken in
the application that the petitioner was not present at the time, when the
alleged attack on the Chief Justice Block of this Court took place, as he had
cases before another Bench, however subsequently, did go to the Chamber
of the then Chief Justice for defusing the mob. In the application, it was
also submitted that there is no ocular account that the petitioner was
involved in any form of hooliganism. Learned trial court, vide order dated
09.10.2024, dismissed the application of the petitioner, hence the instant
petition.
2. Raja Aleem Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court inter alia argued that
case is pending for the last four years without even framing of the charge
and this amounts to abuse of process of the court and in this regard,
accused ought to be acquitted. It was also contended that trial court can
make an order of acquittal at any stage of the proceedings. Learned
counsel also argued that on the same set of evidence, certain persons
nominated in the FIR, were discharged by the police in the report under
section 173 Cr.P.C. and where such is the case, there is no case against
the petitioner, because on the same set of evidence, he cannot be held
liable. It was argued that even-otherwise, it is a case of no evidence
inasmuch as there is no ocular account available against the petitioner and
that the statements of key witnesses have not been recorded. Reference
was made to cases reported as Abbas Haider Naqvi and another Vs.
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 562), State
through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Vs. Ashiq Ali Bhutto (1993 SCMR
523), Muhammad Sharif Vs. The State (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 1063),
The State Vs. Asif Ali Zardari and another (1994 SCMR 798), Mir Shakil Ur
Rehman Vs. Messrs Creek Developers (Private) Limited and another (PLD
3
Crl. Rev. No.140-2024
2019 Sindh 670), Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher Vs. The State (2010
SCMR 949), Munir Ahmed and another Vs. The State and others (2019
SCMR 79), Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Khizar Hayat and another (2024 SCMR
1085), Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hadait Ullah on
account of his false statement: In the matter of (PLD 2019 Supreme Court
527), Mumtaz Ali Shah Vs. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication
Company Ltd. H.Q. Islamabad and 6 others [2002 PLC (CS) 1647].
3. Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court also
emphasized the fact that no testimony of key witnesses has been
recorded; that there is no footage of CCTV camera and/or no evidence
against the petitioner. He also emphasized that despite lapse of four years
period, charge has not been framed and in such case, accused has to be
acquitted.
4. Other senior members of the Bar, appearing on behalf of petitioner,
including Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court, Mr.
Naeem Ali Gujjar, Advocate/President Islamabad District Bar Association,
Mr. Riasat Ali Azad, Advocate Supreme Court, Mr. Haroon ur Rashid,
Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Tassadaq Hanif, Advocate/petitioner in
person, adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. The Deputy District Public Prosecutor opposed the contention of the
petitioner, however, in response to the query of the Court as to the delay
in conclusion of the trial, had nothing to say.
6. Submissions made on behalf of parties have been heard and the
documents, placed on record, examined with their able assistance.
4
Crl. Rev. No.140-2024
7. As noted above, the petitioner is one of the accused in the above
mentioned case, which arises out of unfortunate incident, whereby
allegedly certain lawyers attacked Chief Justice Block of this Court.
8. The thrust of the arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner is
that there is an inexpiable delay in conclusion of case, as it has not yet
started.
9. In case reported as Amanullah Khan and others Vs. The State [PLD
1965 (W.P.) Karachi 310], it was observed that where there is an
inordinate delay in investigation and prosecution of a criminal case,
proceedings are liable to be quashed. Similarly, in case reported as
Muhammad Hussain Vs. The State [PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 322], it was
observed that protracted proceedings are a mockery of the law and must
be deemed to be an abuse of process of Court. It was observed that in
such like circumstances, High Court has ample powers to set aside the
proceedings in exercise of powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C. It is relevant
to state that in the said case, the proceedings were pending for four/five
years. In case reported as Malik Fazal Karim Vs. The State [PLD 1957
(W.P.) Lahore 837], while relying on old maxim ‘justice delayed is justice
dented’. The Lahore High Court observed that where the proceedings have
been pending for five long years without any substantial progress, this
amounts to abuse of process of law and denial of justice and proceedings
be quashed. Similar observations were made in cases reported as Abdul
Shafique Vs. The State [PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 246], The Crown Vs. Piru
and another (PLD 1955 Sindh 227) and Khiyal Muhammad Vs. The State
(2024 SCMR 1490) that where there is a delay in lodging of FIR and
recording of statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., the delay
was held to be fatal.
5
Crl. Rev. No.140-2024
10. There does not seem to be any justification on part of prosecution
for delay in conclusion of trial; almost four years have lapsed without
framing of the charge and recording statement of a single witness. The
petitioner has been in attendance on every date of hearing and yet no
progress in case has been made. The trial has not even started and hence
the conclusion thereof is not insight.
11. It is trite law that an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. can be
filed at any stage of the proceedings. Reference is made to case reported
as Abbas Haider Naqvi and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others
(PLD 2022 Supreme Court 562).
12. It is also interesting to observe that in the police report, on the
same set of evidence, few other accused persons have been discharged by
the Investigating Officer. No plausible justification exists for the same and
the petitioner has rightly relied upon ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’.
Reference is made to case reported as Notice to Police Constable Khizar
Hayat son of Hadait Ullah on account of his false statement: In the matter
of (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 527). In the referred facts and
circumstances, the chances of conviction of the petitioner, are next to
none, even if trial commences.
13. For what has been stated above, instant petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 09.10.2024 is set aside; consequently, application
filed by the petitioner, is accepted and he is acquitted of the charges in the
above case.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS)
JUDGE
Zawar
