YLR 2004

2004 PLP 2291 (YLR)

MUREED HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
W.P. No.3040 of 2003/BWP, decided on 3rd November, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Sh. Hakim Ali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 2291 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sh. Hakim Ali, J
Parties MUREED HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2291 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2291 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Hakim Ali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2291 (YLR) (MUREED HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mrs. Samina Qureshi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 22-A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition-Quashing of order

Petitioner filed application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sessions Judge for issuance of direction to D.S.P. for medical examination of accused, which application was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge with the direction that D. S. P. would investigate case in the light of latest statements of complainant and eye-witnesses of case

Said order of Additional Sessions Judge had been sought to be quashed by petitioner

Prayer of petitioner seemed to be pre-mature and misconceived as report of occurrence was being investigated by Investigating Officer

Guilt or innocence, collection of evidence, recording of the statements and the recovery of weapon of offence and all other matters relating to investigation of a case were within the powers and authority of police, which would not be interfered with except in exceptional circumstances

No special circumstances were in the case for direction to Investigating Officer to take a specific or prescribed course of investigation, as it would hamper the direction and course of investigation of the case being adopted at that stage by Investigating Officer-Rolice should be given a free hand to investigate the case with its own wisdom

Interference at such stage being not proper, order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, called for no interference from High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Judgment & Decree

In the instant writ petition the complairiath./informant of F.I.R. No.102 of 2003 which he got registered under section 302, P.P.C. with the Pacca Laran. Police Station, Tehsil Liaqatpur for the murder of his real brother, wants to get the order dated 8-9-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahitnyar Khan to be quashed.

2. The facts in brief are that Mureed Hussain, complainant filed an application under section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, for issuance of a direction to D.S.P. Headquarter, Rahimyar Khan for medical examination of Muhammad Arshad, accused who was detained in the judicial lock-up, Rahimyar Khan in the aforesaid case. According to the complainant/petitioner the examination of Muhammad Arshad, accused was essential so as to determine the health of Muhammad Arshad, who allegedly was an incapacitated person having suffered the disease of paralysis. The request was made with the intent to show the accused a paralyzed person and to prove that therefore, it was not believable and reasonable for Muhammad Arshad to cause murder alone of the deceased without the help of other persons. This request was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8-9-2003 with the direction that the Investigating Officer D.S.P. Headquarter would investigate the case in the light of latest statements of complainant and eye-witnesses of the case. The same prayer is being repeated here.

3. I have considered the prayer of the petitioner, which seems to be a premature and misconceived request on the part of the petitioner. The report of occurrence is being investigated by the Investigating Officer, seized of the case. The guilt or innocence, the collection of evidence, the recording of the statements and the recovery of the weapon of offence and all other matters relating to the investigation of a case are within the powers and authority of the police, which shall not be interfered except in exceptional circumstances. There are no special circumstances to direct the Investigating Officer to take a specified or prescribed course of investigation, as it would hamper the direction and correct investigation of the case by the Investigating Officer being adopted at this stage. The police should be gilren a free hand to investigate completely the case with its own wisdom. Interference at this stage is not proper, therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan on 8-9-2003 calls for no interference from this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this writ petition. Therefore, I dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-352/L Petition dismissed.