1992 P Cr (PLP)
MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MANZOOR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hameed Khan for Petitioner.
- S.M. Rashid for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 29th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 154‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑F.I.R., registration of‑‑ Apprehensions and grievance of the petitioner did disclose the commission of cognizable offences‑‑‑Police on having received such information was obliged by the mandatory provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C. to record an F.I.R. and then to proceed with the same in accordance with law‑‑‑Police was directed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th February, 1992. The report submitted by the respondent S.H.O. has been perused and the parties have been heard.
2. The petitioner claims that his father had disappeared about fifteen/sixteen years ago and has not been traceable eversince. Adds that his mother also died about a year after the disappearance of his father and further that as a minor he was taken away by his maternal‑uncle who was resident of Karachi. The petitioner further submits that after attaining majority he returned to his native village and found that the land belonging to his father stood mutated in the name of respondent No.4 and the said mutation had been attested by respondent No.2 who was the Lumberdar of the village and also happened to be the father‑in‑law of respondent No.4. The petitioner apprehends that his father was murdered by the present respondents in order to grab the property of the petitioner's father, which was subsequently fraudulently got mutated by the respondents for their benefit. The petitioner has an affidavit in his possession which is stated to be that of Sirajdin who was a marginal witness of the mutation in question and who had declared that he never attested any mutation nor did the father of the petitioner ever come to the village in question for the sale of above‑mentioned land.
3. The apprehensions and the grievance of the petitioner do disclose the commission of cognizable offences and if any such information had been conveyed to the respondent S.H.O. which he does not deny having reached him through the S.P. of the District, the S.H.O. was then obliged by the mandatory provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. to record an F.I.R. and then to proceed with the same in accordance with law.
4. No reasons have been shown which could persuade me against issuing a writ as prayed.
5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the respondent S.H.O. is directed to act in accordance with law as laid down by the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent S.H.O. is biased against the petitioner as is evident from the report submitted by him.
7. In this view of the matter, it is further directed that if a case is registered as directed, the S.P. of Kasur shall depute the C.I.A. staff of Kasur to investigate the same.
8. This Constitution petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. N.H.Q./M‑507/L Writ petition allowed.