Section 561A

S. 561A-Quashment under section 561A of the Code is possible in cases of (a) facts alleged not constituting any offence (b) bar of law (c) coram non-judice (d) lack of legal evidence adduced and for ends of justice. Nazrul Islam Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-114.

S. 561A-The jurisdiction is neither an appellate nor a revisional one. It is a special extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the main aim and object of which is to save the people from any agony of the abuse of the process of the Court and also is designed to do substantial justice. State Vs. Md. Aman Ullah Aman, 18 BLC (2013)-AD-81.

Section 561A-Submission and acceptance of the charge sheet, the consequent cognizance taken by the Courts below and charge framed were based on a legal void. Sohrab Ali Dewan vs State, 64 DLR 106

Section 561A-Magistrate failed or omitted to stop the investigation. Such failure or omission resulted in the subsequent illegal actions. For securing the ends of justice, this Court should formally record an order about stopping the investigation. But in reality the case has already proceeded to the stage of cognizance and framing of charge. The proper course of action would be to treat the investigation as having been stopped and to quash the subsequent proceeding. Sohrab Ali Dewan vs State, 64 DLR 106

Section 561A-From the plain reading of the first information report it cannot be said that no prima-fucie case could be detected against the accused persons. The prosecution case as stated in the first information report has got prima-facie ingredients of the offences alleged. The exact nature of the offence against the petitioners can only be thrashed out upon a trial. Muntasir Hossain MD, Unipay 20 (BD) Lid va State, 64 DLR 177

Section 561A-The procedural due process was not complied with by the Executive Magistrate causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and rendering his conviction won-est in the eye of law. Foyez Ahmed vs State, 64 DLR 257

Section 561A-The entire proceedings of the case right from the beginning to the passing of the impugned order of conviction and sentence were an abuse of the process of the Court and since the same were an abuse of the process of the Court, the petitioner, it seems, rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code. This being the scenario, he did not commit any wrong in not exhausting the appellate forum as mvisioned by section 13 of the Ain. Foyez Ahmed vs State. 64 DLR 257

Section 561A-Quashing-Initiation -Since there is no legal bar against the initiation and continuation of the proceedings and, as such, the proceedings do not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Raj Kumar Khetan vs Mercantile Bank Lid, 64 DLR 272

Section 561A-Justice will be met if the seized rice can be given in the custody of the petitioner on furnishing reasonable bank guarantee to the sattisfaction of the Court concemed. Tarun Majumder vs State, 64 DLR 279

Section 561A-When the law gives anything to anyone it gives also all those things without which the thing itself could not exit. But this power must be exercised very sparingly cautiously and only in exceptional cases keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The inherent powers which are in the nature of extra ordinary power have to be pressed in aid when there is a flagrant abuse by subordinate Court. Joynal Abedin va State. 64 DLR 393

Section 561A-The "account payee cheque mentioned in the complaint petition has not lost it's character as negotiable instrument, the same can he easily brought within the mischief of "any cheque mentioned in section 138(1) of the Act because cheque includes "accoum payee cheque Mohammad Ali vs State, 6-4 DLR 426

Section 561A-Money Laundering is deemed as a financially based crime. It has potentially devastating economic security and social consequences. From the first information report and charge-sheet it cannot be said that no primo-facie case could be detected against the accused persons. Anti-Corruption Commission Unipay 20 Bangladesh Lad. 64 DLR 444

Section 561A-When trial of a criminal case is started by taking evidence of prosecution witnesses normally such trial should not be disturbed by invoking inherent jurisdiction because in the process of trial the accused can ventilate all his grievance by cross-examining the prose cution witness as well as examining defence witness. Karrick Chandra Das State, 64 DLR 438

Section 561A-Record shows that the prosecution witness No. I has already been examined and also cross examined leaving no scope to interfere with the trial and the submission so made by the learned Adro- cate for the petitioner to interfere with the proceeding of this stage also has got no legal substance. Kortick Chandra Das vs State. 64 DLR 458

Section 561A-Criminal proceedings can be quashed if there is something on the record to show that the accusations in the complaint do not disclose an offence, at all, or that evidence adduced in the case discloses no offence as in that event, the process of the court an be said to have been abused. Rabeya Khanam vs State, 64 DLR 467

Section 561A-Whenever the High Court is satisfied that the mandatory provision of law is over-looked High Court Division exercising its discretion power under section 561A of the Code can quash the proceeding. Md Ismail vs State, 64 DLR 473

Section 561A-The order of acquittal passed by the Additional Distinct Magistrate, is quite right and justified. The reopening of the case will start abuse of the process of the court and in such circumstances; the re-opening of the case will strengthen the abuse of the process of the court. It is a fit case for the interference at this stage to stop abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice exercising inherent power under section 561A of the Code. Akkas Ali Sarder vs State, 64 DLR 483

Section 561A-This Court cannot embark an enquiry as to whether allega- tions and materials on record are reliable or not. Those are purely functions of the trial Court to consider with the help of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 64 DLR 1

Section 561A-Whether the Prime Minister had withdrawn money with malafide intention allowing others to misappropriate, or she was involved in the alleged offences in the discharge of her official power as a Public Servant, are factual aspects and subject matters of adjudication by the trial Court. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 64 DLR 1

Section 561A-The High Court Division under section 439 of the Code having supervisory jurisdiction can scrutinize and can go into fact of a case to examine the propriety of the order passed under section 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AKM Fayekuzzaman vs State, 64 DLR 37

Section 561A-Remedies are available either through complaint to the Registrar of Joint Companies; as it is a Bank, to the Bangladesh Bank; or seeking remedy before the Company Bench of the High Court Division. Withholding a scheduled election at the whim and caprice of a few Directors or Company Secretary is not possible as has been alleged by the complainant. Golam Mahbub vs State, 64 DLR 44

Section 561A-Since the prosecution evidence is singularly silent about the recovery of the incriminating arms and ammunitions from the possession and control of the petitioner, the Tribunal below was not justified in law in passing the impugned order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner. Shahjahan vs State, 64 DLR 49

Section 561A-It can not be said that the petitioner invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with unclean hands. Shahjahan vs State, 64 DLR 49

Section 561A-In an arms case the absolute, control and conscious possession of the incriminating article is mandatory for convicting any person, but in the instant case we do not find any such evidence. It is a case of no evidence. Mostafa vs State, 64 DLR 544

Section 561A-The inherent power of the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code can only be invoked if the proceedings are under the provisions of the Code. It does not provide any relief if the trials are not conducted under the provisions of the Code. Since the convictions were made by the various Martial Law Courts, illegally constituted under the Martial Law Proclamations and Regu- lations and not under the Code, the inherent power of the High Court Division under the provisions of section 561A cannot be invoked. Siddique Ahmed vs Government of Bangladesh, 65 DLR (AD) 8

Section 561A-The petitioner earlier moved an application under section 561A of the Code to quash the proceeding of the case before this Division; but being unsuccessful taking new device, the petitioner by filing an application under section 344 of the Code has challenged the proceedings of the case and jurisdiction of the Court. No doubt the application is misconceived and thus, not tenable in law. (PER M ENAYETUR RAHIM JAGREEING WITH MD FARUQUE J) Giasuddin-al-Mamun vs State, 65 DLR 41

Section 561A-There is nothing in the FIR and charge-sheet to show as to how the accused-petitioner had connivance with the principal accused in the matter of creating forged document. The facts disclosed in the FIR and charge-sheet do not attract any offence against the accused-petitioner to proceed against him. Continuation of such proceeding after taking cognizance would be sheer abuse of process of the Court. Shafiqul Alam (Md) vs State, 65 DLR 83

Section 561A-A criminal proceeding starts from the date of taking cognizance and if it is found that the allegations made in the FIR or petition of complaint do not disclose any pima-facie case, against the accused-petitioner, continuation of such proceeding would be useless and prepos- terous; and as such, it is an abuse of the process of the court rendering the same liable to be quashed. Shafiqul Alam (Md) vs State, 65 DLR 83

Section 561A-Whether the petitioner had any role in the illegal transaction or whether he abetted the principal accused in manipulating the tender for sale of the case properties and whether the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value are all disputed questions of fact which may be resolved on taking evidence by the trial Court. Ali Haider Chowdhury vs State, 65 DLR 116

Section 561A-Fugitive-In the absence of surrender before the process of the Court, the application filed under Section 561A of the Code is incompetent and not maintainable in the eye of law. Ali Haider Chowdhury vs State, 65 DLR 116

Section 561A-Proceeding cannot continue against the petitioner alone as the abettor of the offence of criminal breach of trust without the principal offender of such offence. Badsha Mia vs State, 65 DLR 189

Section 561A-Since there is legal bar against the initiation and continuation of the proceedings and, as such, the proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan vs State, 65 DLR 218

Section 561A-Fugitive from Justice

-When a person wants to seek remedy from a Court of law, he is required to submit to the due process of the Court and unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will not pass any order in his aid. The accused-petitioners did not obtain regular bail after expiry of the period of anticipatory bail and, as such, they become fugitive from the proceedings in the eye of law. Tajul Islam vs State, 65 DLR 336

Section 561A-Proceeding of the case, where as many as 9 witnesses have been examined and cross-examined cannot be quashed under section 561A of the Code. Monir Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 413

Section 561A-Just because a civil suit has been filed questioning the validity of the notice and proceeding pursuant to the same, and if only for that reason the proceeding is quashed or stayed, no criminal case in this country can proceed because in each and every criminal case the accused will try to take recourse to civil suits before the civil Courts challenging the proceeding on any pretext. Just for the pendency of a civil suit, there cannot be any legal hindrance in going ahead with the proceedings. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 65 DLR 437

Section 561A-Stop Payment-Since the cheques were returned by bank with the endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer" it is to be presumed that those were returned unpaid because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account was insufficient to honour of the cheque as envisaged in section 138 of the Act. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The defence can be considered at the time of holding trial and not in an application under section 561 A of the Code. SM Redwan vs Md Rezaul Islam, 66 DLR (AD) 169

Section 561A-Legislature has not created any absolute bar in filing a petition of complaint before expiry of thirty days of the receipt of the notice issued under clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 as created in case of filing a petition of complaint after expiry of one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. Prematurity shall be cured the moment the period of thirty days expires and the payment of the dishonoured cheque is not made within the said period. Zahidul Islam (Md) vs Md Kamal Hossain, 66 DLR (AD) 180

Section 561A-Defence materials as submitted by the accused-petitioner cannot be considered in a quashing proceeding. Mohidul Islam (Ripon) (Md) vs State, 66 DLR 108

Section 561A-Allegations brought against the accused-petitioner are factual matters which require to be resolved on taking evidence. Since the excavator was in possession of the accused-petitioner prior to filing of the case and since it was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner, justice will be met if it remains with the accused-petitioner until the allegations brought against him are proved on evidence. Abdur Razzak Liton (Md) vs State, 66 DLR 334

Section 561A-Disputed questions of fact cannot be determined by the High Court Division by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code. What's more whether the allegations of abetment in manipulating the tender for sale of disputed properties are true or false can only be resolved during the trial of the case. The admissibility, propriety or sufficiencies of materials collected by the prosecution are matters of evidence. ACC vs Mehedi Hasan, 67 DLR (AD) 137

Section 561A-Exercising the inherent power by the High Court Division, the requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceeding would be abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investi- gation, charge and trial and in the event the High Court Division is desirous of putting a stop to the known procedure of law, it must use a proper circumspection and great care in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. ACC vs AAM Habibur Rahman, 67 DLR (AD) 278

Sections 561A-The settled principle is that while considering of the application under section 561A of the Code the High Court Division will not take into consideration of the defence papers. ACC vs AAM Habibur Rahman, 67 DLR (AD) 278

Sections 561A and 173-Non implicating any person as accused in a proceeding cannot be a ground for quashing the proceeding of the charge- sheeted accused when the prima-facie case had been established against him. ACC vs AAM Habibur Rahman, 67 DLR (AD) 278

Section 561A-The hard earned money of the people spent from the public exchequer cannot be misused at the whims and sweet wills of the accused-petitioner and others for their illegal gains and benefits. Yunus (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 97

Section 561A- Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided invoking the jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code and it is the function of the trial Court which will decide the factual aspects of the case on taking evidence. Yunus (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 97

Section 561A-Application filed under section 561A of the Code is main- tainable even after framing of charge. Yunus (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 97

Section 561A-Inherent power under section 561A of the Code can be invoked at any stage even after conclusion of trial if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Yunus (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 97

Section 561A-Criminal offence never abates and the proceeding drawn against another accused was quashed, the same have not reached its finality unless the same are finally adjudicated and decided by the higher forum. Yunus (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 97

Section 561A-In dealing with an application under section 561A a court may take into consideration the hardwork on the part of prosecution at different stages before initiation of a proceeding by way of taking cognizance by a court below because ends of justice is not a one way traffiq, i.e. for accused only, but also for victims of an offence, therefore any interference might be similar to uproot-a growable tree without waiting to see what kind of fruit or flower it could produce as a grown up tree in course of time. This kind of application should not be allowed in order to delay the proceeding to reach its conclusion on merit expeditiously. M Shamsul Islam vs State, 67 DLR 294

Section 561A-The presence of the elements of an offence is an essential part of commission of an offence which are difficult to be examined on an application under section 561A of the Code and can hardly scrutinize the presence of such elements at this stage, as there is always a risk in application of the inherent power of this Court prematurely.M Shamsul Islam vs State, 67 DLR 294

Section 561A-Pendency for a matter for such a long period of time without taking an appropriate measure for hearing the Rule in early stage is unfortunate and undesirable when it is accepted that trial court should have dealt with the matter expeditiously in order to conclude the trial. M Shamsul Islam vs State, 67 DLR 294.

Section 561A-Mere physical posses- sion of the counterfeit notes is not an offence punishable under section 25A of the Act but the intention as it transpires from the FIR, facts, circumstances on record and the other evidence it has become clear to us that criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage of hearing because it needs evidence to be recorded by the court during the course of trial to establish the intention of keeping huge quantity of counterfeit note in the apartment. Abdul Wahed Gaffar vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 218

Section 561A-A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged proce- dural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. Anti- Corruption Commission vs Rezaul Kabir, 68 DLR (AD) 291

Section 561A-The contents of the FIR of each case, other facts and circum- stances disclosed the elements of offences alleged and those offences had been committed even before laying traps. Without taking into consideration whether the prima-facie cases against the accuseds had been made out or not in view of the facts and circumstances apparent from the FIR, charge-sheet and other materials. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Rezaul Kabir, 68 DLR (AD) 291

Section 561A-The vires of the law has not been challenged in the writ petition. There is no assertion in the writ petition that the statutory relief under section 561A of the Code was ever sought to agitate the grievances. Surprisingly, there is no state- ment in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition because of either the absence of or inadequacy of equally efficacious alter- native statutory remedy. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1

Section 561A-Quashment of a criminal case for non-supplying of certified copy of any document, which is not available in record, is not legally accept- able. Giasuddin-al-Mamun (Md) vs State, 68 DLR 67

Section 561A-Since copies of application has been served upon the State as well as the Anti-Corruption Commission and we have already heard the learned Attorney-General and the learned Advocate for the Commission, issuance of Rule for the purpose of hearing the opposite parties is no more required. Giasuddin-al Mamun (Md) vs State, 68 DLR 67

Section 561A-Since the criminal pro- ceeding can be proceeded independently of the civil suit, there is no bar to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Abu Sayeed Chowdhury (Samrat) vs State, 68 DLR 169

Section 561A-Question of fact is out of the ambit of jurisdiction under section 561A Code and cannot be quashed. Hasan (Md) vs State, 68 DLR 225

Section 561A-A lot of petitions under section 561A CrPC are moved without impleading the beneficiary of the cheque/ the complaint as party to the proceeding. Appropriate provisions may be made to secure justice to the aggrieved and to stop indiscriminate granting of bail without at all considering the chance of absconsion of tampering with the evidence. Harun-or- Rashid vs State, 68 DLR 535

Section 561A-In an application under section 561A of the Code, there is little scope to scan the evidence, of witnesses and that since it is not a case of no evidence it is difficult to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Sharif alias Shaira vs State, 69 DLR (AD) 41

Section 561A-Determination of a person having consent or connivance of, or is attributed to or any negligence on his part during the business of a Company or not is a disputed question of fact and can only be determined upon taking evidence during trial. There is no scope to decide the question of fact, sitting under jurisdiction of section 561A of the Code. Mozahar Sowdagor (Md) vs State, 69 DLR 204

Section 561A-On a reading of the petition of complaint it is difficult to hold that there is any legal bar or the continuation of the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The proposition of law is by now well settled that on the basis of the defence plea or materials, the criminal proceedings should not be stifled before trial, when there is a prima-facie case for going to the trial. Nurul Huda (Md) vs State, 69 DLR 486

Section 561A-Since the charge sheet has not yet been accepted by the Court, in the eye of law there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner and until and unless the Court takes cognizance there is no any scope to exercise the extraordinary power of the High Court to quash the proceeding. Zubaida Rahman vs State, 69 DLR 562

Section 561A-In exercising power the court requires being more cautious and power in a matter of quashment of proceedings is to be exercised sparingly. Exercise of inherent power relates to onerous and more diligent duty of the Court. Only when the Court, in light of facts and circumstances is justifiably prompted to conclude that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, it can make it convinced that the proceedings need to be quashed. Zubaida Rahman vs State, 69 DLR 562

Section 561A-Reliability of the accusation against the petitioner can be well adjudicated only in trial on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the prosecution when the petitioner must have due opportunity of being defended and to refute the arraignment brought against her, if cognizance of offence is taken and trial commences on framing charge by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Zubaida Rahman vs State, 69 DLR 562

Section 561A-The Court must act in accordance with the mandate of the statute and in delivering judgment or passing any order; it must see its power conferred by the statute and cannot attribute something beyond the scope of the relevant section of the statute. Khondker Latifur Rahman vs State, represented by the Deputy Commis- sioner, Chittagong, 70 DLR (AD) 25

Section 561A-Ordinarily the High Court Division cannot exercise its inherent power in awarding costs. There is no express provision in the Code authorizing the High Court Division to award costs in exercising its inherent power under section 561A of the Code. The only provision in section 344 of the Code which authorizes a criminal Court to award costs during trial of a case. Other than section 344 of the Code, sections 250, 544, 545, 546A of the Code empower a Court to pass an order to pay compensation only for defraying expenses of prosecution. Khondker Latifur Rahman vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong. 70 DLR (AD) 25

Section 561A-In exercising the jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code, the High Court Division shall have the discretion to award costs against a party under a very extraordinary and exceptional circumstances in a judicious manner and not in contradiction with any of the specific provisions of the Code to meet the situations: to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to give effect to any order passed under the Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Costs may also be given to meet the litigation expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the purposes. Khondker Latifur Rahman vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong, 70 DLR (AD) 25

Section 561A-The reasons on which the High Court Division awarded the costs against the accused do not come within the purview of section 561A and more so no such case was made out by the complainant in his counter affidavit. Khondker Latifur Rahman vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong. 70 DLR (AD) 25

Section 561A

When a frivolous case is filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, in that case the Court may exercise its discretion under section 561A of the Code but such power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court Division should normally refrain from giving a prima-facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and when entire material has not been collected…… 76 DLR (AD) 23

Section 561A-On perusal of the statements made in the FIR and the charge sheet it appears that there are some materials which may constitute offence punishable under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 considering which the High Court Division held that 'there is clear and strong prima facie case of dishonest misappropriation of public property or otherwise disposal of public property in violation of law constituting offence punishable under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947'. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 70 DLR (AD) 99

Section 561A-The accused peti- tioners straight way moving to this Court under section 561A of the Code, at the very initial stage of the case, stayed the whole proceeding of the case; even though there has been some specific allegations against them and while the other co-accused were in absconding against whom the warrant of arrest was pending. Moinul Hoque Chowdhury vs State, 70 DLR 533

Section 561A-The recognized principle for quashing of a criminal case by this Court by exercising its inherent power on the ground of preposterousness is that a plain perusal of an FIR/petition of complaint shall inevitably give an under- standing to its reader that its version is so absurd that ex-facie it transpires to be contrary to nature, reason or common sense, Aleya vs State, 70 DLR 303

Section 561A-When an absconding- convict comes with clean hands before the High Court Division resorting to the extra- ordinary jurisdiction under section 561A and makes out a clear case of no evidence or coram-non-judice, then this Court may entertain the absconding-convict's applica- tion under 561A to secure the ends of justice. Shamim Howlader (Md) vs State, 70 DLR 776

Section 561A-This Court in an appropriate case is legally authorized to review or modify the sentence passed by the trial Court to secure ends of justice. Nasir Mia (Md) vs State, 70 DLR 801

S. 561A-Inherent Power of the Court

In view of the fact that neither the F.I.R. nor the charge sheet disclosed any offence against the accused petitioner, any further continuation of the impugned proceeding against him clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The exercise of the inherent power of the High Court Division is therefore, necessary only for preventing an abuse of the process of the Court and for securing the ends of justice. Nripendra Chandra Nath Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-1I14.

S. 561A-The powers contemplated under Section 561 A are no doubt quite wide and can be exercised in suitable cases where injustice has resulted there from. It safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Rule was issued under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the proceeding of Keranigonj PS case No. 48 under section 147/148/447/307/379/506/427 of the Penal Code in the Court of Ist class Magistrate, Dhaka shall not be quashed. In view of fact and circumstances, High Court Division held that the instant proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court and interference of this court is required under its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and the said proceedings is liable to be quashed. Kazi Khairuzzaman and others Vs. The State, 18 MLR (2013)-HCD-178.

S. 561A-The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping and the combination of individual's liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function the Courts function begins when a charge is preferred before it and not until then and, therefore, the High Court Division can interfere under section 561A only when a charge has been preferred and not before. TaeHung Packaging (BD) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh (Civil), 18 BLC (2013)-AD-144.

S. 561A-Formalities before filing the petition of complaint are matters to be thrashed out during the trial and the accused-petitioners shall have ample scope to take those objections at the trial. Jamuna Builders Ltd Vs. Bangladesh (Civil), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-219.

S. 561A-The petitioner earlier moved an application under section 561 A of the Code to quash the proceeding of the vase before this Division; but being unsuccessful taking new device, the petitioner by filing an application under section 344 of the Code has challenged the proceedings of the case and jurisdiction of the Court. No doubt the application is misconceived and thus, not tenable in law. Giasuddin-al-Mamun Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-41.

S. 561A-The inherent power of the High Court Division under Section 561A of the Code can only be invoked if the proceedings are under the provisions of the Code. It does not provide any relief if the trials are not conducted under the provisions of the Code. Since the convictions were made by the various Martial Law Courts, illegally constituted under the Martial Law Proclamations and Regulations and not under the Code, the inherent power of the High Court Division under the provisions of Section 561A cannot be invoked. Siddique Ahmed Vs. Government of Bangladesh (Civil), 65 DLR (2013)-AD-8.

S. 561A-Since there is legal bar against the initiation and continuation of the proceedings and, as such the proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan Vs. State (Criminal), 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-218.

S. 561A-Fugitive-In the absence of surrender before the process of the Court, the application filed under Section 561A of the Code is incompetent and not maintainable in the eye of law. Ali Haider Chowdhury Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-116.

S. 561A-We also failed to see any logic behind the argument of Mr. Amirul Islam that in order to exercise the power of superintendence and control over the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals as mandated in article 109 of the Constitution, the High Court Division can really exercise its power of judicial review and thus, interfere with the proceedings of the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. It is expected that the impugned proceedings challenged in the writ petitions having arisen out the petition of complaint and the FIR by an individual as well as by a designated Government official shall be dealt with by the concerned Magistrate/Court in accordance with the provisions as laid down in the Code. In case the concerned Magistrate/Court does not deal with the cases in accordance with law as provided in the Code or the accused are not treated in accordance with law, they shall have every right to take recourse to the provisions of the Code inclusive of section 561A thereof as observed in the impugned judgments. So, the question of superintendence and control by the High Court Division under article 109 of the Constitution over the Magistrate where the impugned proceedings/cases are pending by way of interference through judicial review does not arise at all...(12). TaeHung Packaging (BD) Limited Vs. Bangladesh, 10 ADC (2013)-Page 361.

S. 561A-A criminal proceedings starts from the date of taking cognizance and if it is found that the allegations made in the FIR or petition of complaint do not disclosed any prima-facie case, against the accused-petitioner, continuation of such proceeding would be useless and preposterous; and as such, it is an abuse of the process of the Court rendering the same liable to be quashed. Shafiqul Alam (Md) Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-83.

S. 561A-Fugitive from Justice-When a person wants to seek remedy from a Court of law, he is required to submit to the due process of the Court and unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will not pass any order in his aid. The accused-petitioners did not obtain regular bail after expiry of the period of anticipatory bail and, as such, they become fugitive from the proceedings in the eye of law. Tajul Islam Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-336.

S. 561A-There is no ingredients of offence under section 427 and 447 of the Penal Code or any other criminal offence against the accused-petitioners and the complainant has got no authority to prosecute the case in his official capacity against the policy of their controlling Ministry and hence the proceeding of the case is quashed. Abdus Sattar Khan & ors Vs. The State, 2 LNJ (2013)-HCD-293.

S. 561A-Allegation under Section 420 of the Penal Code against a partner of a marriage-It appears that the accused petitioner did not invoke the provision of Section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor moved the Sessions Judge. under Section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against framing charge. It has been settled that when the matter at the stage of taking deposition, the case should not be quashed unless the same is on preposterous facts apparent to the complaint petition. Mrs. Rehan Parvin Vs. The State & Anr (Criminal). 21 BLT (2013)-AD-11.

S. 561A-Charge has already been framed, during trial the truth will come out, but in deciding the merit of an application under section 561A of the Code, there is no scope of going into the question whether the witnesses in the judicial inquiry had told the truth or not, the veracity of their statements can only be tested by cross-examining them. Jamila Khatuan Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-AD-223.

S. 561A-Proceeding cannot continue against the petitioner alone as the abettor of the offence of criminal breach of trust without the principal offender of such offence. Zakir Hossain Vs. State (Criminal), 1 CLR (2013)-HCD-319.

S. 561A: Existence of element of criminal breach of trust in the FIR: power under section 561A cannot be exercised by the High Court Division------ (Para--- 13). Badsha Miah Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-189.

S. 561A-Allegation under section 500 of the Penal Code an abuse of the Process of the Court.

Held; the news item had been published on the basis of press release issued by M. Misbahul Kabir, the publicity Secretary of Bangladesh Chattra Shibir Chittagong Metropolitan City Unit; but the maker of the press release has not been made an accused in the instant case. Apart from this, the news item was also published in the Daily Azadi and the Daily Sangbad, but the publishers and editors of those newspapers were not made accused in the instant case. In view of 9th Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code, the alleged publication of news item does not fall within the mischief of the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Penal Code if the same is published in good faith and for public good without having any malice to cause any damage or loss to any body. We are led to hold that the proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law being an abuse of the process of the Court. Abul Asad & Anr Vs. The State & Anr, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-463.

S. 561A-It is by now well established that the inherent power under Section 561A of the Code can be invoked 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. Therefore a convict may also invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division if he can make out a case of coram non judice of the trial or that the facts alleged do not constitute any offence or that the conviction has been based on no legal evidence. Illias Mia @ Illias Vs. The State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-112.

S. 561A-Allegation under section 406/420/462 of the Penal Code-Offence has disclosed in the Petition of Complaint. Held in this principle of quashment under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has all ready been settled. The truth of the allegation made against the accused-petitioner can only be determined after trial in accordance with law. Md. Biplob Ashraf & Ors Vs. The State & Anr, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-166.

S. 561A-In order to make out a case under section 561A for quashment the allegations in the F.I.R and finding in the charge-sheet should be taken in their face value and accepted in their entirety. Kazi Khairuzzaman & Ors, Vs. The State, 33 BLD (2013)-HCD-61.

S. 561A-The Proceedings of a criminal case cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials. Soumitra Sankar Das & Anr. Vs. The State, 33 BLD (2013)-HCD-105.

S. 561A-The truth of the allegation made against the accused-petitioner can only be determined after trial in accordance with law. Md. Biplob Asharaf & Ors, Vs. the State & Anr, 33 BLD (2013)-HCD-168.

S. 561A-(1) Whenever it is found that an appeal or for that matter, the inherent power under Section 561A of the Code provides an equally efficacious remedy, the exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court Division would not be available and any petition in this respect filed under Article 102 of the Constitution would be misconceived. His remedy, if any, under the facts and circumstances of the case, would be under the Code and not otherwise (Para 301).

(2) An application under section 561A of the Code, under the inherent power of the High Court Division, would provide an equally efficacious remedy to that of the extraordinary power of the Court, as such, an application under Article 102 would be misconcieved and is liable to be dismissed. Siddique Ahmed Vs. Government of Bangladesh & Ors (Civil), 33 BLD (2013)-AD-204.

S. 561A-In order to make out a case under section 561A for quashment the allegations in the FIR and finding in the charge-sheet should be taken in their entirety. Kazi Khairuzzaman & Ors. Vs. The State, 33 BLD (2013)-HCD-61.

S. 561A read with Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 467/468/471

In the complaint petition, it is only alleged that the company of the petitioner has been shown as purchaser and no allegation whatsoever has been made against the petitioner; that the allegation of forgery is made in reference to the alleged power of attorney, but the company of petitioner is not a party to the power of attorney but the company of petitioner is not a party to the power of attorney, neither is there any allegation that the petitioner made, signed sealed or executed or caused to make, sign, seal or execute the said power of attorney and as such no offence under Sections 467/468/471 has been disclosed against the petitioner. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan Vs. State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-186.

S. 561A read with Penal Code, 1860;

S. 501 and 502-Whether letter Alif use in the subject matter, to hurt the religious feelings. The word Alif is one of the letter of the letters of used in the Holy Quran,

Held: On plain reading of the allegation of complaint we find the word used in the subject matter of defamation is not a matter to hurt the religious feeling of the complainant in any manner whatsoever the same will come within the exception of Section 499 of the Penal Code. Therefore we hold that the continuation of the proceeding adopted and constituted in the aforesaid case is abused of the process of the Court. Thus the Rule having merit succeeds. Shafiqur Rahman & Ors Vs. The State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-203.

S. 561A-read with Penal Code, 1860; S. 506 In the instant case there is no allegation that the petitioner and the complainant or wife of complainant ever met face to face and as such there is no scope to make amy criminal intimidation and in the instant case the complainant alleged that the petitioner made intimidation through "mustan" but under section 503 such intimidation 3 party is not sufficient to constitute any offence under section 506 of the Penal Code and further more the complainant did not name the said "mustan" neither mention any time and place and mode of such intimidation through 3rd party and as such no allegation under section 506 of the Penal Code has been disclosed in the FIR and charge sheets against the petitioner for which reason the proceeding of the said case under section 506 of the Penal Code is liable to be quashed. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan Vs. The State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-268.

S. 561A-The settled principle of law is that a disputed question of fact cannot be determined by the High Court Division exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code. Such a question can be determined at the trial on taking evidence. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-88.

S. 561A- Inherent power of the Court

It has been consistently held by the Appellate Division that the High Court Division shall sparingly exercise the extra-ordinary power under section 561A of the code that too under specific conditions. When there is an alternative remedy available under the Code, this power shall not be invoked in respect of any matter covered by any provision of the Code. It is only when the matter in question is not covered by any specific provision of the Code, in that case only section 561A can come into operation subject to the requirement that the exercise of this power must serve any of the three purposes mentioned in the section. The State Vs. Md. Aman Ullah Aman, 2 ALR (2013)-AD-23.

S. 561A-Abuse of the processes of the Court

In the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned proceeding against the such petitioner was found preposterous and further prolongation of the same would cause unnecessary harassment to the accused and would thereby amount to any abuse of process of the Court. The impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner. Alhaj A.B.M. Mohiuddin Chowdhury Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-66.

S. 561A-The High Court Division is not invested with any appellate or alternative power under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure..(3) The inherent powers of the High Court Division is neither an alternative nor an additional in its correct sense and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievenances for which no other procedure is available. This section confers no new powers on the High Court Division. It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by the High Court Division to secure the ends of justice. The section provides that those powers which the court inherently possesses shall be preserved lest it be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent powers had survived that passing of the Code...(4) The State Vs. Md. Ariful Islam @ Arif (Criminal), 10 ADC (2013)-Page No. 532.

S. 561A-Where the very initiation of criminal case is under challenge we find no impediment to entertain this type of application filed under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to invoke the inherent jurisdiction not only in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court but also to secure the ends of justice. .....(11) M.A. Munim Vs. The State, 3 TLR (2013)-Page 428.

S. 561A-

Allegation under sections 420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code-In the instant case, it appears from the record of the case that no civil suit has been filed challenging the legality or propriety of the deed of sale allegedly executed and registered by the petitioner and others. It is not also a case of the petitioner that the informant as plaintiff earlier filed Civil Suit No. 95 of 2003 before the learned Assistant Judge, Dhamray, Dhaka-facie allegation of cheating and forgery against the petitioner who, in collusion with other accused, forged the power of attorney dated 29.12.1986 and sold out the case land to obtain wrongful advantage or to cause a legal injury to the informant impersonating herself as a constituted attorney. So, we find that there are prima-facie ingredients of cheating and forgery against the accused of the case, we are of the view that the present case does not came within the ambit of principles of quashing the proceeding under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the FIR discloses prima-facie ingredients of offences against the accused-petitioner and others under section 420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code. Most. Rabeya Begum Vs. The State & Anr, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-361.

S. 561A-It is well settled that the criminal proceedings should not be at all have the indefinite period for the cause of pendency of civil suit. Hedayet Ullah Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-272.

S. 561A-A criminal case starts from the stage of taking cognizance. Unless cognizance is taken, the FIR named suspected persons are not accused before the Court in the eye of law. When no criminal case exists before the date of taking cognizance, the question of quashing such a non-existent criminal case by invoking section 561A of the Code does not arise at all. Sadek Hossain (Md.) Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-278.

S. 561A-The Metropolitan Sessions Judge ought to have washed his hands of the matter and waited for the decision of the High Court Division with regard to cancellation of bail of the accused. Nazim Ahmed Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-511.

S. 561A-Conviction under Section 19A and 19(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 along with Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Mistaken Identity. FIR and Charge Sheet of the alleged case it appears that in no where the name of the present petitioner Md. Abul Khair Nadim alias Abul Khair, son of late Mostafizur Rahman of Village Musapur, P.S: Sandwip. Dist: Chittagong was mentioned is an accused of the case, rather the name of one Md. Nadim (in the FIR) Md. Nazim (in the Charge Sheet), son of Md. Habib Chowdhury, Village Harannia, P.S: Sandwip, District: Chittagong shown as the alleged accused No.2 of the case. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order of Conviction and sentence dated 20.01.1991 it also appears to us that in the impugned Judgment in no where the name of the present petitioner was mentioned as a convicted accused. In the said Judgment though one Md. Nazim (Nadim) was convicted but neither his fathers name nor his address was same to the petitioner, even though the name of the convicted accused was not same to the present petitioner. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of view that the petitioner was not an accused of the aforesaid and he was wrongly taken into the custody in connection with the aforesaid case as a convicted accused which seems to be an abuse of the process of the Court; as such the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Abul Khair Nadim @ Abul Khair Vs. The State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-372.

S. 561A read with Penal Code, 1860;

S. 447

For constituting offence under section 447 of the Penal Code, the accused must commit a criminal trespass within the meaning of section 441 of the Penal Code and a mere trespass in the property is not sufficient to constitute an offence of Criminal trespass rather a trespass into the land must be coupled with intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or any person in possession of such property but in the instant case there is no injury to the property and no other offence has been disclosed, nor is there any allegation of committing on the land in question, furthermore admittedly the said land in question is vacant and therefore the complainant and his wife having not resided on the land in question, there is no scope to enter into the land in question for causing any injury or annoy to the complainant and therefore no offence against the petitioner under section 447 of the Penal Code has been disclosed and that mere trespass into the land is not any criminal offence and for this reason the allegation as disclosed in the FIR and charge sheet even if taken on its entirety are so preposterous that no offence has been disclosed against the petitioner, for which reason the proceeding of this case is liable to be quashed. Mojibur Rahman (Md.) Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-36.

S. 561A-The investigation conducted by the 10 was incomplete and further investigation should be directed for securing the ends of justice. The quashment of the proceeding is not called for, since there are allegations of creation of false documents. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan Vs. State, 21 BLT (2013)-HCD-268.

S. 561A-When First Information Report disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner, no application under Section 561A of the Code is at all maintainable. Dr. Khalekuzzaman Vs.State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-40.

S. 561A-A proceeding can not be quashed on the ground of pre-maturity of the cause of action, even if the petition of complaint was filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date of the cause of action. Engineer. Afsaruddin Ahmed Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-1.

S. 561A-Mr. Md. Helaluddin Mollah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that the case against the petitioner was false and concocted by the police for failure to pay a large sum of money as demanded by the police officer and for refusing to compromise the case concerning the murder of his own brother. He submits that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by legal evidence. He submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was not identified by the informant in the dock. He further submits that the conviction of the petitioner was based on his confessional statement which was extorted by police torture and is clearly exculpatory, and therefore, the High Court Division erred in accepting the Death Reference. He further submits that Article 103 of the Constitution has been amended by Act No. 14 of 2011 whereby it is now provided that if the High Court Division upholds the sentence of death or imposes the sentence of death or life imprisonment upon any accused then the accused shall be entitled to prefer appeal as of right before the Appellate Division. He finally submits that since the Constitution has been amended giving a beneficial right to the accused, the same right shall accrue to the petitioner although his appeal before the High Court Division was disposed of by a judgment and order which was passed before the amendment to the Constitution....(9). Dipak Datta Bhola Vs. The State, 10 ADC (2013)-Page-176.

S. 561A

Arms Act (XI of 1878)

S 19A and 19(1)-Neither the seizure list witnesses nor the public witnesses were produced and examined before the Tribunal to prove the recovery of the Arms and Bullet from the exclusive control and possession of the petitioner. All the 7 prosecution witnesses are police personnel who proved the prosecution case but their evidence was not supported either by seizure list witnesses or by public witnesses. Non examination of important witnesses raise doubt about the prosecution case and the accused petitioner will get the benefit under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to prove recovery of Arms and Bullet from the exclusive control and possession of the petitioners. Md. Hasamul Islam Hanif @ Galcutta Hanif and Hanif Vs. The State, (Cri Misc), 2 LNJ (2013)-HCD-42.

S. 561A-Mere denial of allegation cannot be taken into consideration in the S. 561A-The accused petitioner is a retired professor of Botany of a Government College who 67 years aged. It was not disclosed in the FIR that under what capacity the informant lodged complaint against the accused petitioner before the Wakf Administrator. This shows that the informant is being proceeding under section 561A of the Code. Abdul Wahab (Md) Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-382.

The allegations brought against the petitioner are so preposterous and absurd that cannot these be believed for which the police also submitted the final report and as such the proceeding should be stopped in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Since the initiation of the proceeding is the product of falsehood and grudge and since no prima facie case against the petitioner has not been made out and facts as disclosed in the FIR are so preposterous that no proceeding can be taken against the petitioner Hence the proceeding is quashed. Rabeya Khanam Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-5.

S. 561A-If the Magistrate had passed an order of police remand despite the fact that the accused respondent had been suffering for ailment, the latter had his remedy to prefer a revision petition before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge against the said order but in presence of such specific remedy, how the High Court Division entertained the petition is not clear to us? This Division repeatedly observed that the High Court Division shall sparingly exercise this power and when there is alternative remedy this power shall not be exercised. The State Vs. Md. Aman Ullah (Criminal), 10 ADC (2013)-Page 263.

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, 195(1)(c) 200, 463, 465, 468, 419, 471, 475, 476

In view of the provision of clause (c) of section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Respondent No. 2 may approach the court for taking appropri ate step against the appellant since he used a deed in the suit as genuine inspite of knowing the same being forged and then it is for the court alone that may decide as to whether it would initiate proceeding against the appellant for committing one of the offence or more as mentioned in clause (c) of section 195 (1) Cr. PC. Md. Abu Daud Sarder vs. The State (Md Ruhul Amin J) (Criminal)2ADC 784

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—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 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—Stay of proceeding—In the facts of the case as in point of time the civil suit was instituted before the filing of the FIR 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 vs State 43 DLR (AD) 102.

Section 561A-Prima-facie offence has been disclosed against the accused persons in the FIR and charge sheet and the tribunal having found prima-facie case framed charge against the accused persons. Falsity or truth of the allegation has to be decided at the trial in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. Hasina Akhter vs Amena Begum (Criminal) 75 DLR (AD) 68

Section 561A-The High Court Division has not been empowered to usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court invoking section 561A of the Code. Hasina Akhter vs Amena Begum (Criminal) 75 DLR (AD) 468

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

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 he petition of complaint but on a reading of he same his complicity with commission of offence could not be traced out. The proceedings 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 to proceed 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 chning 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 Stare 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 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—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 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 complainant has the option to activate prosecution of the petitioners under the Immigration Act, 1982 as well, but if the allegations contain ingredients under the Penal Code, the complainant’s case before the Magistrate cannot be stifled by quashing. Noor Jahan Begum vs State, being represented by the Deputy Commissioner 49 DLR (AD) 106.

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—In view of the complainant’s case that he delivered goods in good faith on the accuser’s inducement of part payment and promise to pay the balance price within 3 days but subsequently betrayed, it cannot be said there is no prima facie case against him—the High Court Division rightly refused to quash the proceeding. Arifur Rahman alias Bablu vs Shantosh Kumar Sadhu 46 DLR (AD) 180.

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—A litigant should not be allowed to move this Court under section 561A of the Code when other remedy is available to him under the Code. Section 561A of the Code is to be taken resort to only to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice and not to allow abusing the process of the Court to stop trial of the cases for about a decade and then to get acquittal in the trial Court afterwards for want of evidence occasioned by lapse of long time. Maksudur Rahman Hilaly vs State 47 DLR 314.

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

519.

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—In the, 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. The continuation of the present proceeding will be an abuse of process of court and harassment to the petitioner. The proceeding is thus liable to be quashed. Abdul Mannan Sarker vs State 53 DLR 565.

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

to anarchy. Bangladesh vs Md Amjad Ali Mridha 56 DLR (AD) 119.

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—The allegation as depicted in the complaint is an outcome of a typical partnership business transaction which is civil in nature and, as such, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner certainly tantamount to abuse of the court and law and, as such, it should be quashed. Dr S Ashraf Ali vs Md Ahsan Habib and the State 56 DLR 169.

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

DLR 636.

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

a decree in civil Court as per decisions of 14 DLR (SC) 18 and 51 DLR (AD) 14 where the matter is in seisin of the civil Court, no criminal proceeding can be continued on the said allegations. Firoz Hossain Shah (Md) vs State 58 DLR 361.

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.

Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]

Section 561A read with

Negotiable Instruments Act [XXV1 of 1881]

Section 138 read with

Evidence Act [1 of 1872)

Section 114

Whether filling up all space of the cheque proceedings quashed.

The conversation through electronic media like instagram can be accepted as evidence.

Until the contrary is proved, every negotiable instrument which is duly made or deemed to have been made should prima facie be held to be ane supported by consideration. Presumption ander 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, shifts the burden of proof in the second seme that is, the burden of establishing a case shifts the defendant, the defendant may adduce direct evidence to prove that the cheque was not supported by consideration and if he adduced acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts the plaintiff, and so on. It is therefore clear that the burden is ambulatory, at one time it is on the plaintiff, and according to the proof and circumstances, it shifts on to the shoulders of the defendant.

If a cheque is denied by the drawer but he did not filled up may signed or may not be signed by the accused petitioner and if it is proved by way of acceptable evidence its burden shift to the plaintiff. [2023] 29 ALR (HCD) 68

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—Quashing of proceeding, not before cognizance is taken—A criminal case actually starts from the date of taking cognizance and issuance of the process. Before cognizance is taken, there is virtually no pending criminal proceeding in the eye of law. So a non-existent criminal proceeding cannot be subject matter of quashment. In this respect, decision of our apex Court in the case of Abdul Huque vs State reported in 60 DLR (AD) 1 may profitably be quoted. Salahuddin Ahmed vs State 62 DLR 351.

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.

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 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.