1. This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby the petitioners Gul, Allah Bux, Fazal, Sher Khan and Qaiser have sought quashment of the case pending against them in the Court of IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that on 10-7-1979, at about 7-45 a.m.
3. Complainant A.S.I. Taro Khan of P.S. Saeedabad, filed F.I.R. No.59/79 at Saeedabad, P.S., alleging therein, that he alongwith other police staff, went to the Otaq of Habibullah Jamali, to arrest Usman Brohi, an accused in Crime No.36/79 under section 324/457, P.P.C. On reaching there, accused Gul and others fired at police party to kill policemen anti used criminal force to deter them from discharging the official duty. After usual investigation, the case was challaned against the above petitioners accused alongwith co-accused. Ahmed Khan, Anwer and Waloo. On 25-10-1982, charge under section 307/353/148/149/216, P.P.C. Was framed against all of them.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15-5-1984 the first prosecution witness by name Roshan was examined by the prosecution, who failed to support the prosecution case. The complainant A.S.I.
5. Jaro Khan as well as other witnesses never turned up to give evidence. The petitioners filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. On 27-7-1986 before the trial Court with a prayer to acquit the petitioners. The said application was found misplaced from the record and as such another one was, filed on 20-4-1987. The arguments of the counsel were heard by the trial Court on 6-7- 1988 and was fixed for orders on 16-7-1988. No orders, were however, passed by the Court on 16-7- 1988. 21-7-1988 and 17-8-1988, when the Presiding Officer was transferred to Karachi. On repeated requests, the learned Sessions Judge declined to consider the application.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge made continuous efforts to compel the attendance of the prosecution cases, but no fruitful result could be achieved. However on 13-5-1991, the Investigation Officer, Inspector Sami Ahmed, appeared in Court and was examined by the prosecution the case is pending in the trial Court since last 12 years.
7. The quashment of the case pending in the trial Court has been sought on- the sole ground of delay in disposal of the case. Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that despite the efflux of 12 years since registration of the case against the petitioners and the two prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of the two witnesses namely Roshan did not support the prosecution case and the other prosecution witness is Investigation Officer. The contention of the counsel is that in the were of the above factual position the delay in the disposal of the case was tantamount to gross abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, the only appropriate course would be to quash the case pending in the lower Court.
8. Mr. Abdul Latif Assistant Advocate-General Sindh did not dispute the factual position as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He frankly endorsed the arguments, that this is a fit case for quashment.
9. This was admittedly started with lodging of the F.I.R. Which is dated 10-7-1979. Thereafter the challan was submitted in the Court of IInd Assistant Sessions Judge and the charge was framed in the year 1982. The prosecution examined one witness namely Roshan on 15-5-1984. A perusal of his deposition would show that he did not support the prosecution case. The other witness Inspector of Police Sami Ahmed was examined on 13-5-1991. Except these two witnesses no other witness has been examined by the prosecution.
10. The pending of the case for such a long period could not be without damaging impact on the accused. On one hand they have suffered the agony of being dragged before the police and in the Court for so long and on the other hand the protracted litigation has seemingly robbed the accused of their pea, of mind. One who is not vigilant does not deserve to be legally helped. There is a long time of authorities in which delay in disposal of criminal cases has been deprecated.
11. "In view of all these circumstances it seems to us that the institution of criminal proceedings in Court, after nearly eight years of the registration of the cases, constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the Court, and this Court will be failing in its duty if it did not intervene to stop this abuse."
12. "This is a height of injustice m shape of abuse of the process of Court which was being made against the accused by the trial Court for over a period of nine years.
13. The legal position that is enunciated in the above authorities is that criminal cases are required to be disposed with utmost speed. The inordinate delay caused in conclusion of the trial of such cases has always been bitterly criticised by the Superior Courts who have invariably quashed the proceedings pending in the lower Court on the ground of delay. As stated above in the instant case more than 12 years have elapsed since registration of the case against the petitioners and co- accused. During all these years the case had made no progress except two witnesses and, therefore, end of the case is not in sight. I am of the opinion that the case should not be permitted to continue, further to the detriment of the accused. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the Sessions Case No.158/79, the State v. Gul and others pending in the Court, of Assistant Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is quashed, N.H.Q./G-294/K