YLR 2009

2009 PLP 2329 (YLR)

MUSLIM KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FARZANA and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.1130 of 2008, decided on 9th September, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Dost Muhammad Khan and Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 2329 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Dost Muhammad Khan and Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, JJ
Parties MUSLIM KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FARZANA and others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2329 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2329 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Dost Muhammad Khan and Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2329 (YLR) (MUSLIM KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FARZANA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Amirur Rehman Khan for Petitioners.
  • Eid Muhammad Khattak for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 9th September, 2008.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.203-A

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Registration of criminal case

Petitioners had questioned the legality and propriety of the registration of case involving them in the crime under Ss. 366/376/109, P. P. C.

Main contention of petitioners was that in view of promulgation of Criminal Law Amendment (Protection of Women) Act, 2006 particularly under the amended provisions of S.203-A, Cr.P.C. one of the petitioners being a lady, she could not be subjected to Police investigation nor the Police had an authority to register a case against her

Plea t complainant was that one of the offences under S. 366, P.P.C., was not covered by the amended law and the Police could proceed with the case to that extent

Held, it was more advisable to adopt the safer course by filing a complaint against the petitioners in the competent court for all the three offences; that would be the correct legal course to avoid legal complication in future

Case F.I.R. stood cancelled, however, the contents of the F.I.R. could be valid basis for complaint to be filed in the Court and the Court would be competent to take cognizance if it was satisfied that such offences had been committed and it could proceed against accused, but in accordance with law.

Judgment & Decree

DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--The petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the registration of case involving them in crimes under sections 366/376/109, P.P.C. by Police Station, Nowshera Kalan vide F.I.R. No.536 dated 12-7-2008. Arguments heard, record perused.

2. The main contention of the petitioners counsel is that in view of the promulgation of Criminal Law Amendment (Women Protection) Act, 2006 parti cularly under the amended provisions of section 203-A, Cr.P.C. one of the petitioners being a lady cannot be subjected to police investigation' nor the police have an authority to register a case against her.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that one of the offences under section 366, P.P.C. is not covered by the amended law and the police may proceed with the case to that extent.

4. After arguing the case at length it was thought more advisable to adopt the safer course by filing a complaint against the petitioners/accused in the competent Court for all the three offences and in our view too that would be the correct legal course to avoid legal complication in future.

5. Accordingly case F.I.R. No.536 shall stand cancelled, however, the contents of the F.I.R. may be valid basis for complaint to be filed in the Court and that Court would be competent to take cognizance if it is satisfied that such offence/offences have been committed and it may proceed against the accused but in accordance with law. In view of the nature of the order given above, C.M. No. 1084 of 2008 has become infructuous and is dismissed.

6. Petition allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./173/P Order accordingly.