Case Jr proceedings of the polic e dep~rtment. 11 The Court itself in the same paragraph of the order went on to ob II a five-member bench serve, This has been auth oritatively held by . of th, C rt therefore, can quash a judicial tsd' ourt m Shahnaz Begum. A High Cou court ~nder Section 561 -A Cr.P.C, if it nd rodce~ mg pe ing before any subordinate ent the abu se of the process of that court m s It n~cessary to make such order to prev ever, it should not ordinarily exercise its or 0th erwise to secure the ends of justice; how e such order unle ss the accu sed person has power under Section 561-A Cr.P .C. to mak t under Section 249-A or 265 -K, Cr.P .C.". first availed his remedy before the trial cour High Court, therefore, can quash a the key observations made by the Court: A subordinate court under Section 561-A Judicial proceeding pending before any order to prevent the abuse of the process Cr.P.C., if it finds it necessary to make such ofjustice. There is no dispute however that of that court or otherwise to secure the ends such a power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. a High Court should not ordinarily exercise on has first availed his remedy before the to make such orders unless the accused pers .C. Learned counsel for Axact has also trial court under section 249-A or 265-K Cr.P Nawaz Jagirani and others (PLO 2016 SC relied upon Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed has observed that exercise ofjurisdiction by 55). In this case as well the Supreme Court should not be undertaken in the normal the High Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. rent jurisdiction was dependent on noncourse and that the exercise of the inhe edy and/or exercise of some extraordinary availability of alternate and efficacious rem jurisdiction. Some other cases have been circumstances warranting exercise of such ever, I have not referred to them because cited by the learned counsel for Axact, how ght i.e. a High Court should not exercise each of those cases reiterates the same thou ly however the same may be exercised in powers under section 56 I-A Cr.P.C. ordinari by the High Court. exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded efore be appropriate to first address the 4. Before proceeding further it would ther nal grounds or whether it is necessary for question as to whether there are any exceptio prevent abuse of the process of the.trial the High Court to make an order in order to ce. In my opinion, in the circumstances of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justi Court to entertain an application under the present case, there is a ground for the High abuse of the process of the trial court as section 561-A Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the king at the case broadly, the case is well as to secure the ends of justice. Loo amental right of speech as enshrined in exceptional as at the heart of it is the fund ublic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"). Article I 9 of the Constitution oflslamic Rep dismissed this application on the ground The reason I have taken an exception and not before the trial court, are as follows: that the applicant should now seek his remedy right which is not unfettered. The 5. Freedom of speech is not a fundamental ch ends and hate speech begins has been debate of where the right of freedom of spee t 1948 when the right of freedom of the subject of numerous debates since at leas ersal Declaration of Human Rights. expression was given a place in Univ in our Constitution, in Article 19 of the Coincidentally, such a right is contained, as freedom of speech is "our blueprint for Declaration. There is no denying though that society." "The matrix, the indispensable personal liberty and the cornerstone of a free ?n7 ?f t2 l .asp?Casedes=2024K3045 http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/conten 11/7/2024 8:51 :44 AM