1.

By virtue of Section 540, the Court has unlimited powers or there are some
parameters.

The Court is required to guard and protect the witnesses against any undue harassment and
undesirable cross-examination that brings about answers from their mouths due to the
exhaustion suffered by the undue long process. The powers conferred in Court through
Section 540 Cr.P.C. are inquisitorial in nature and are meant to discover the truth that is
being suppressed by either party involved. The Supreme Court held that the Court has been
granted with unfettered powers summon and examine such witness to discover the truth and
serve, however such powers are not to be exercised at random and without application of
proper judicial mind and reasonability.1 The witnesses under the said section are examined as
‘Court witnesses’ and not as witnesses of either party involved. It further held that such a
discretion so vested in the Trial Courts cannot be ordinarily questioned unless it is
established that they’ve resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.2 The provision of Section
540 Cr.P.C. gives unrestricted power to the court to call evidence at any stages, provided that
they are essential for a just decision.3 It is a settled principle of law that discretionary powers
of the Court should be invoked only to meet ends of justice and once exercised by a Court
should not be disturbed or set aside by superior courts.

2. Meaning of groundless under Section 249-A.

Groundless indicates that there is no tangible evidence and thereby no probability of

conviction of accused on the basis of available evidence and further trial of the case would be
a futile exercise. It was meant to as a case baseless on merits.4 Section 249-A Cr.P.C.
empowers the Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the proceedings even before
framing of the charge if no prima facie case exists against the accused. The wisdom and
scheme provided under the section is to save an innocent person from a lengthy trial which
has no legal backing and will ultimately result in the acquittal of the accused.5 Groundle
means the case where there is no good ground for charge.6

3. Scope of Article 199 of the Constitution and scope of Section 561-A Cr.PC
(Quashment).

Powers under Section 561-A is neither alternative nor additional and is to be invoked only in
the interest of justice for redress of grievance having no other procedure. The provision is not
to be used to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. 7 Article 199 grants the Court a

1
PLD 2018 SC 28
2
PLD 1984 SC 95
3
2018 PCrLJ 1368
4
1980 PCrLJ 823
5
2017 PCrLJ 219
6
1992 PCrLJ 110
7
PLD 1976 SC 461
 constitutional jurisdiction that is to be exercised under extraordinary circumstances only,
when there is no other recourse available or has been exhausted. Section 561-A grants the
Court with inherent powers that are very wide and can be exercised at any time.8 The
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 may be exercised for the quashment of
proceedings under exceptional cases. Undoubtedly, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, the court has ample powers to quash the proceedings if it finds
that even after recording all evidence, the accused won’t possibly be convicted.9 High Court
cannot directly quash FIR and person seeking such should avail alternate remedies in the first
instance.10 High Court cannot quash an FIR on the basis of malafide or that the FIR discloses
a civil liability.11

4. Find a judgment related to Section 249-A and 265 K (Year 1980).

5. Whether Section 249-A and 265-K are same or not.

Powers under Section 249-A and 265-K are co-extensive with similar powers of the High
Court.12 In case of Section 249-A and 264-K Cr.P.C., the Court has to satisfy with reasons
that there no probability of conviction even if the prosecution is allowed to complete its case.
Section 249-A grants such powers to the Magistrate, whereas Section 265-K confer these
discretionary powers to the criminal court exercising original jurisdiction. In either case. The
Court should have a firm view regarding the reasonableness for early acquittal and such
exercise is not extended to ‘benefit of the doubt’.

8
1994 SCMR 798
9
2014 YLR 429
10
2016 PCrLJ 153
11
1996 SCMR 186
12
1991 PCrLJ 315