1990 PLP 582 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 582 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 582 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 582 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 582 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Azam Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 18‑4‑1989 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.42‑Q of 1988). ‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.325/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑After finding case not tit for quashing whole of the criminal proceedings, High Court remanded case to trial Court with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law‑‑‑Nothing wrong was found with this judgment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J: ‑Muhammad Ali, Nasir Ali and Nadir Ali filed a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in the Lahore I‑ugh Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, for quashment of proceedings in criminal case "State v. Muhammad Ali and two others" under section 325/34, P.P.C. The learned Judge of the High Court disposed of the petition by order dated 18‑4‑1989 observing thereby, "The upshot of the above discussion is that it is not a fit case in which whole of the criminal proceedings be quashed, but while accepting this petition partly, I remand the case to the trial Court with the direction that the charge against petitioners 2 and 3 be framed afresh and thereafter he should proceed in accordance with law". The petitioners are not satisfied with this order. They now seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order. We have heard learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. There is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment. The case has been remanded to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No case is made out for leave to appeal. Dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1183/S Petition dismissed