' AHMED KHAN LASHARI, J.---By this Criminal Quashment Petition, order dated 28-11-2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, has been challenged, with the following prayer:-- "It is accordingly respectfully prayed that the order dated 28-11-2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta be quashed and direction be issued to send the matter to the Sessions Judge, Quetta for trial of the case under section 302, P.P:C. Also as alleged by the petitioner beside passing of an order within the meaning of section 185(2), Cr.P.C. With any other relief in the interest of justice."
2. The stated facts of the prosecution case are that on 21-10-2005, complainant Syed Abdul Haleem in his report registered vide Crime No,38 of 2005 of Police Station Cantt. Quetta, offence under sections 365, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. Alleged that after his refusal to give the hand of his daughter, namely, Aisha Bibi to accused Jaffar, the accused along with co-accused Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Zafar, Niamatullah, Syed Muzaffar, Usman, Junaid and others abducted his daughter in a vehicle from his house situated at Shahrah-e-Chiltan, Quetta Cantt. The abductee and accused Jaffar were, subsequently, murdered at Peshawar and case vice Crime No,186 of 2005, offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered at police station Gul Bahar, Peshawar against the complainant party. On completion ofinvestigation in murder case, the nominated accused of the complainant party absconded, thus, they were declared as proclaimed offenders. When challan of the abduction case was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Quetta for trial of the accused, the complainant filed an application, seeking, for insertion of section 302, P.P.C. In the challan, and that the case be sent to the sessions court for trial, which was rejected vide impugned order, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the F.I.R. In respect of abduction of Mst. Aisha was registered at Quetta, therefore, the subsequent act in continuation of the first offence is to be tried together at Quetta, thus, the Judicial Magistrate has erred in law in refusing to insert section 302, P.P.C. In the challan of abduction C case and sending the case to the Court of sessions for trial of the accused. He in support of his arguments referred the Judgment-reported in A.I.R. 1931 Allahabad 55.
4. M/s. Syed Ayaz Zahoor and Muhammad Qahir Shah, learned counsel for respondents, opposed the arguments of petitioner's counsel by contending that the complainant party, after being declared proclaimed offenders in- order to pressurize the' opposite party and to frustrate the proceedings of the murder case, filed instant application. It was next argued that both the cases are separate in nature and are not continuation of the oneoffence, thus, the court below rightly declined D the prayer of petitioner. They in support of their arguments referred case laws-reported in PLD 1962 W.P. (Karachi) 499, PLD 1962 W.P. (Karachi) 748, PLD 1967 Peshawar 314.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned parties' counsel and have gone through the record including the impugned order as well as cited case-laws. The petitioner's counsel contended that after abduction of Mst. Aisha from Quetta, the accused persons committed her murder at Peshawar, thus, challan of the subsequent case was to be filed along with abduction case at Quetta. Section 182, Cr.P.C. Provides that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than, one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas, while sections 177 and 183, Cr.P.C. Lay down that when offences are committed in the course of same transaction, but in different territorial limits, they should not be tried jointly in disregard of the provisions relating to territorial jurisdiction, because the provisions of section 239(d), Cr.P.C. With regard to joinder of persons does not override the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State-reported in PLD 1982 W.P. Karachi 499.
' Subsection (2) of section 185, Cr.P.C. Provides that where two or more courts not subordinate to the same High Court have taken cognizance of the same offence, the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced may direct the trial of such offender to be held in any Court subordinate to it, and if it is so decided all other proceedings against such person in respect of such offence shall be discontinued. But the facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different. The abduction of the deceased lady was stated to have been committed on 6-10-2005, while report was lodged on 21-10-2005. The complainant party after murder of the lady and accused Jaffar did not join or associate E with the investigation to disclose the facts and after submission of challan of the abduction case, by an application, prayed for insertion of the relevant section of murder case in the challan and referring the matter to the Court of Session. The two acts do not amount to one offence, but are two distinct offences. The murder is not -in consequence of the first offence, but is the re-action of the abduction, thus, both the offences are to be tried separately by the Courts having territorial jurisdiction. It may be noted that the determination of jurisdiction should be made at first and not left to be determined after the Court has made up its mind whether to acquit or convict the accused. As stated hereinabove, the challan of the murder case has already been filed in the Sessions Court at Peshawar, wherein the nominated accused of the complainant party have been declared as proclaimed offenders, thus, no case has been made out falling within the ambit of section 182, Cr.P.C. The case-law referred by the petitioner's counsel for want of identical facts and circumstances does not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, thus, is repelled.
' For what has been discussed hereinabove, -the trial Court, after proper appraisal and interpretation of the law, rightly rejected the application, thus, order dated 28-11-2006 passed by the trial Court is upheld and petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.