2006 PLP 757 (YLR)
NEELOFAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 757 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | NEELOFAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 757 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 757 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 757 (YLR) (NEELOFAR HAYAT — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ameer Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.419, 420, 463, 468, 471 & 109
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), An. 199
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Offences with which accused was charged, though were not compoundable, but both parties were highly educated and according to complainant incident had taken place on account of some misunderstanding
Complainant present in the Court, had stated that she had been duly compensated and her money had been returned to her
Continuation of proceedings, after said compromise between parties, would only add to miseries of parties and would further embitter their relationship
Accused and her co-accused had assured complainant that matter had come to an end and they would not resort to any sort of litigation either civil or criminal
Complainant had also assured that matter was over and site would not further raise any dispute of any kind against accused persons
State counsel had also not seriously opposed quashing of F.I.R.
F.I.R. was quashed, in circumstances. Ghulam Ali v. The State and another 1997 SCMR 1411 ref. Muhammad Aslant Malik vice Fazal-e-Miran Chohan, Addl. A.-G. for the State. Akhtar Hussain with Mst. Shazia Naureen for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. No.318, dated 28-8-2004, registered at Police Station, Jauharabad, District Khushab for offences under sections 419/420/ 463/468/ 471 read with section 109, P.P.C.
2. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that Syed Zubair Hussain and Shahid Hussain, co-accused of the petitioner, had shown a residential plot to the complainant with the connivance of Ijaz Hussain co-accused, who had shown himself as a Property Dealer, and had claimed that they were the owners thereof, as a result of which they had received an amount of Rs.3,50,000 from her. Later on, it transpired that the actual owner of the said plot was one Qadir Shah, who was also in possession of the same. It was stated that as such they had committed fraud and forgery and had executed a bogus sale-deed with a view to depriving the complainant of Rs.3,50,
000. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, the allegation against her was that she being wife of Syed Zubair Hussain had abetted the crime. 4. (sic) Although the offences charged with are not compoundable, yet, it has been observed that both the parties are highly educated and according to the complainant the incident had taken place on account of some misunderstanding. The complainant, who is personally present in Court, states that she has been duly compensated and her money has been returned to her. As such, continuation of the proceedings now after compromise having taken place, will only add to the miseries of the parties and will further embitter their relationship. The petitioner and her co-accused, namely, Syed Zubair Hussain and Shahid Hussain, who are present in the Court, in the connected bail petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.6997-B of 2004, which is also incidentally fixed for today, have assured the complainant that the matter has come to an end and they will not resort to any sort of litigation either civil or criminal. Similarly, the complainant has also assured that insofar as she is concerned, the matter is all over and she will not further raise any dispute of any kind against the accused persons.
5. The learned State counsel also submitted that although the offences charged with are not compoundable, yet in view of the compromise, he would not seriously oppose the quashing of the F.I.R. He relied on the case of Ghulam Ali v. The State and another 1997 SCMR 1411.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and F.I.R. No.318, dated 28-8-2004, registered at Police Station, Jauharabad, District Khushab for offences under sections 419/420/463/468/471 read with section 109, Y.P.C. is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./N-102/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? F.I.R. quashed.