1989 PLP 4726 (MLD)
Mst. AMAN MAI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASREEN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4726 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMAN MAI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASREEN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4726 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4726 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4726 (MLD) (Mst. AMAN MAI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASREEN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Muqeet Shaikh for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S 506‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Threats simpliciter were allegedly extended and no alarm was caused to complainant for doing an act which she was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which she was legally entitled to do‑‑No case for trial of accused, thus could be made out on the charge of criminal intimidation‑‑Proceedings were quashed in circumstances. Ch. Abdul Nabi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Muqeet Shaikh for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Nabi for the State. Through this petition, Mst. Aman Mai and two others accused/petitioners want this Court to quash proceedings in complaint under Section 506, P.P.C. pending decision before Magistrate Ist Class, Bahawalpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly. submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners and co‑accused in the complaint accepted at its face value, no offence punishable under section 506 is made out and as such the proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the action taken by the Magistrate in the complaint. He was of the view that since the petitioners and their co‑accused had threatened the complainant with death, therefore, they were rightly summoned under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to face the trial and the proceedings pending against them are quite legal.
2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners. The allegations levelled against the petitioners and co‑accused in the complaint may be re‑produced advantageously:‑
3. An examination of the aforesaid allegations shows that the threats allegedly extended by the petitioners were not conditional and as such it is a case of threats simplicitor. The criminal intimidation has been defined in Section 503 of P.P.C. which reads as under: "503, Criminal intimidation. Whoever threatens another with an injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation." Since in the case in hand, the petitioners have not given threats with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause him to do act which he was/is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which he was/is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, so no case for the trial of the petitioners on the charge of criminal intimidation is made out.
4. That being the position, there is no option but to quash proceedings against the petitioners and co‑accused as being abuse of process of Court. S.A./A‑757/L Proceeding quashed.