2001 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus NABI BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus NABI BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus NABI BAKHSH and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhtar Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 154
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Registration of criminal case--Dispute regarding attestation of mutation
Matter was pending before Revenue Authorities as well as before Civil Court
Contention by the petitioner was that a criminal case be registered against the respondents for alleged misstatement before the Revenue Authorities whereby disputed mutation was attested
Validity-- Matter having proceeded before the Revenue Authorities partial relief had been allowed to the petitioner
Legal heirs were to be determined in the civil suit which, was pending and the shares of the heirs would be ascertained therein
Misstatement having been rectified, no cognizable offence was made out in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 154
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Registration of criminal case--Dispute regarding attestation of mutation
Matter was pending before Revenue Authorities as well as before Civil Court
Contention by the petitioner was that a criminal case be registered against the respondents for alleged misstatement before the Revenue Authorities whereby disputed mutation was attested
Validity-- Matter having proceeded before the Revenue Authorities partial relief had been allowed to the petitioner
Legal heirs were to be determined in the civil suit which, was pending and the shares of the heirs would be ascertained therein
Misstatement having been rectified, no cognizable offence was made out in circumstances. Akhtar Ali Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has submitted that he alongwith his other brothers and sisters are entitled to the property of Meraj Bibi and also Ghulam Muhammad. However, respondent No. 1 who was also related to the deceased in connivance with other heirs got the property mutated through Mutation No. 407 in their names to the exclusion of the legal heirs. The matter was brought to the notice of the Additional Deputy. Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha who vide his order, dated 22-6-2000 cancelled the mutation and ordered the Consolidation Officer to hear the parties, determine as to who are the heirs and then enter/sanction a fresh mutation. A civil suit has also been filed by the respondents as it has become apparent from the contents of the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel through the instant writ petition states that oral statement was made by the respondents whereby the petitioner and others were deprived of their share and as such it is contended that a criminal case is made out for which the concerned Police Officer be directed to register a case.
3. I cannot subscribe to the arguments raised by the learned counsel. The matter is before the Revenue Authorities where partial relief has been allowed to the petitioner. A civil suit is also pending in which the heirs have to be ascertained and then their shares have to be apportioned. According to, the so-called misstatement, which; too stands rectified no cognizable offence is made out to call for interference or direction to concerned S.H.O. Dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-319/L Petition dismissed.