সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Quashment of Proceeding
Precondition for Quashing a preceding: According to the settled principle for a quashing a criminal proceedings it is necessary to see whether the facts alleged by the prosecution in the F.LR and charge sheet would attract elements of offence. Faysal Chowdhury Vs. State (Criminal), 1 Counsel (2013)-HCD-129.
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 (2013)-HCD-413.
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 (2013)-HCD-437.
Section 561A-Unless law is strike down or amended we have no authority or scope to interfere with the proceeding or to quash the same on the ground that the existing law is bad one or inconsistence with its object, in exercising the power under section 561A of the Code. Mahmu chur Rahman Nazlu vs State, 64 DLR 179
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
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 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 83
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
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
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
Defence materials as submitted by the accused-petitioner cannot be considered in a quashing proceeding. Mohidul Islam (Ripon) (Md) vs State, 66 DLR 108
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
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
