2006 P Cr (PLP)
SOOMAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SOOMAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (SOOMAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Sher Muhammad with Raja Muhammad Basharat for Petitioner.
- 3. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General refers to the reply filed by the respondent Abdul Hameed, which mentions that the applicant is a criminal and is absconder in many cases. The respondent Abdul Hameed also alleges that the applicant is a criminal and his son was arrested in a case and, therefore, he filed the complaint as a counterblast.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 200 & 439
Direct complaint
Sessions Judge, sent direct complaint against S.H.O., to the Magistrate concerned for preliminary inquiry
Magistrate, after holding inquiry, submitted report to Sessions Judge to the effect that prima facie a case was made out for registration, but Sessions Judge took a converse view and dismissed the direct complaint
Complainant filed revision against order of Sessions Judge
Court at the stage of preliminary inquiry, had to see whether evidence placed on record had, prima facie, made out a case, for registration
Inquiry report, in the present case, had shown that sufficient evidence was brought on record which prima facie had made out a case to be registered
Order challenged in revision did not give adequate reasons to reject finding of Magistrate who had conducted preliminary inquiry
Impugned order, in circumstances could not be maintained
Case should have been registered in view of findings in preliminary inquiry.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. RABBANI, J.
The applicant filed a direct complaint against respondent S.-I. Abdul Hameed Khakhrani before II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who sent it to Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M. Shikarpur for preliminary inquiry. After inquiry, the Magistrate submitted his report to the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur that, prima facie, a case was made out for registration, but the latter took a converse view and dismissed the direct complaint filed by the applicant. This revision has, therefore, been filed.
2. Raja Sher Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the witnesses examined during the preliminary inquiry had supported the version of the applicant and the learned Magistrate conducting the inquiry found that, prima facie, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the respondent, but the Additional Sessions Judge, without assigning any reasons to reject the finding of the Magistrate, dismissed the direct complaint.
3. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General refers to the reply filed by the respondent Abdul Hameed, which mentions that the applicant is a criminal and is absconder in many cases. The respondent Abdul Hameed also alleges that the applicant is a criminal and his son was arrested in a case and, therefore, he filed the complaint as a counterblast.
4. At the stage of the preliminary inquiry, the Court has to see whether the evidence placed on record makes out a case, prima facie, to register the case. In the present case, the inquiry report shows that there was sufficient evidence brought on record for that purpose. The order, dated 3-2-2003, challenged in this revision does not give adequate reasons to reject the finding of the Magistrate who conducted the preliminary inquiry. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be maintained. In view of the findings in the preliminary inquiry, a case should have been registered against the respondent Sub-Inspector Abdul Hameed Khakhrani. The revision is accordingly allowed. The II-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur shall register the case against him and proceed according to law. H.B.T./2/FSC Revision allowed.