2004 P Cr (PLP)
Malik NASEER HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Malik Hamid Saeed, J |
| Parties | Malik NASEER HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Malik Hamid Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (Malik NASEER HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Maqsood for Petitioners.
- Mehmood Abbas for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 169, 249‑A, 439‑A & 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.182. & 436‑‑‑Quashing of order‑‑‑Discharge of accused‑‑‑Discharge of an' accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. was an administrative act of Magistrate and it would not amount to an acquittal of accused‑‑‑Order of discharge could be recalled by the Magistrate subsequently and accused could also be summoned by Trial Court to face the trial ‑‑‑F.I.R., in the present was registered against the accused under S.436, P.P.C. and during bail before arrest, complainant filed before Trial Court to the effect that Jirga of locality having satisfied him about non‑involvement of accused, he would have no objection if pre‑arrest bail granted to accused be confirmed‑‑‑Bail was confirmed and later accused were also discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused, after sufficient time, moved application against complainant for registration' of case against them under S.182, P.P.C. as complainant had levelled a false charge against the accused ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Affidavit given by complainant was only related to his no objection over confirmation of bail before arrest of accused and in view of existence of F.I.R. filed by complainant under S.436, P.P.C., no case under S.182, P.P.C. could be registered against complainant unless Court would come to the conclusion that the case against accused was malicious, false, vexatious or frivolous‑‑‑Simply on the basis of discharge of accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. no cause of action would accrue to the accused to prosecute the complainant under S.182, P.P.C.‑‑Whole proceedings against complainant were premature and not warranted under law‑‑ Orders passed by Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, were quashed and complaint registered against the complainant was declared as not maintainable. PLD 2001 Lah. 84 ref. Malik Ahmad Jan, D.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.97 of 2003, decided on 12th September, 2003. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 169, 249‑A, 439‑A & 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.182. & 436‑‑‑Quashing of order‑‑‑Discharge of accused‑‑‑Discharge of an' accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. was an administrative act of Magistrate and it would not amount to an acquittal of accused‑‑‑Order of discharge could be recalled by the Magistrate subsequently and accused could also be summoned by Trial Court to face the trial ‑‑‑F.I.R., in the present was registered against the accused under S.436, P.P.C. and during bail before arrest, complainant filed before Trial Court to the effect that Jirga of locality having satisfied him about non‑involvement of accused, he would have no objection if pre‑arrest bail granted to accused be confirmed‑‑‑Bail was confirmed and later accused were also discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused, after sufficient time, moved application against complainant for registration' of case against them under S.182, P.P.C. as complainant had levelled a false charge against the accused ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Affidavit given by complainant was only related to his no objection over confirmation of bail before arrest of accused and in view of existence of F.I.R. filed by complainant under S.436, P.P.C., no case under S.182, P.P.C. could be registered against complainant unless Court would come to the conclusion that the case against accused was malicious, false, vexatious or frivolous‑‑‑Simply on the basis of discharge of accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. no cause of action would accrue to the accused to prosecute the complainant under S.182, P.P.C.‑‑Whole proceedings against complainant were premature and not warranted under law‑‑ Orders passed by Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, were quashed and complaint registered against the complainant was declared as not maintainable. PLD 2001 Lah. 84 ref. Naveed Maqsood for Petitioners. Malik Ahmad Jan, D.A.‑G. for the State. Mehmood Abbas for Respondents Nos. 2 and