1995 PLP 1086 (MLD)
MALIK ALI BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR, F.IA. BARAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1086 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | MALIK ALI BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR, F.IA. BARAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1086 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1086 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1086 (MLD) (MALIK ALI BHATTI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR, F.IA. BARAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akhtar Munir Peerzada for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑Initiation of proceedings against the petitioner by the complainant appeared to be mala fide and to harass him‑‑‑If the petitioner owed any amount to the complainant the latter should have approached appropriate forum instead of using the F.IA. agency to adopt coercive measures‑‑‑Proceedings initiated by the Agency against the petitioner were quashed in circumstances and the Constitutional petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akhtar Munir Peerzada for Petitioner. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by Malik Ali Bhatti seeking issuance of a direction to respondent to act in accordance with law and refrain from harassing, humiliating the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Javed Iqbal through Mr. Irshad Ahmad Dahar, Advocate, Bahawalpur served a notice dated 20‑12‑1994 upon the petitioner stating that the complainant got himself insured in 1991 through the petitioner and paid instalment of premium for 4 years amounting to Rs.37,000 but the present petitioner neither issued any receipt for the premium paid to him nor continued the insurance policy and kept documents of policy in his control; hence cheated applicant‑complainant and deprived him of Rs.37,000 by unfair means. It was further stated in the notice that the present petitioner should contact the applicant‑complainant within 15 days and redress his grievance otherwise legal proceedings would be initiated. Copy of the notice was forwarded to General Manager Postal Life Office, Lahore.
3. The respondent under the garb of said notice initiated proceedings and deputed some constables who humiliated the petitioner as alleged, hence this writ petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel as well as respondent in person.
5. It is admitted fact that the applicant‑complainant was insured through Policy No.CL‑36105‑LHB/against a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on 30‑11‑1991 and paid Rs.3,600 as first instalment. The complainant, as conceded by the respondent, had left the country and has recently returned to Pakistan; the action of respondent in pursuance of the legal notice is beyond his jurisdiction and nothing except harassing to the petitioner. From a bare reading of the notice it seems to be a matter of civil nature. The complainant initiated legal proceedings for recovery of the alleged amount after 4 years.
6. For what has been stated above, initiation of proceedings against the petitioner appears to be based on mala fide and to cause harassment to the petitioner. If the present petitioner owes any amount to the applicant -complainant, he should approach appropriate forum and not use the respondent agency to adopt coercive measures. This being so the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. N.H.Q./M‑1979/L Petition allowed.