2014 PLP 1374 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAHAR SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1374 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHAR SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1374 (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 2014 PLP 1374 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1374 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAHAR SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 2013.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner.
- 3. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition has firstly submitted that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was due to the fact that some of the private respondents were police officials and hence they effectively thwarted petitioner's attempt to lodge the F.I.R. in question. Finally the said F.I.R. was lodged through the intervention of the Courts of Law as the allegations against the private respondents are that they beat up the complainant party, confined them in a car and took away their paddy crop which prima facie constitutes a criminal act and for which purpose ample evidence was available with the petitioner in the shape of eye-witnesses etc. Hence the concession of pre-arrest bail was wrongly extended to the private respondents as there is no allegation of mala fides etc. against the complainant. Learned Advocate Supreme Court further submits that the incident itself is not denied by the private respondents as according to them the crop was taken away by the parties who were declared as the owner thereof in arbitration proceedings between them.
- 4. On the other hand, Rana Arif, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the private respondents, submits that the petitioner is the tenant of respondent No.9 Muhammad Iqbal and had filed a suit against him and others for pre-emption which was compromised and decreed. Hence in fact the private respondents in consequence of such decree had taken away the rice in question and all the allegations of applying force for this act and manhandling of the complainant party have been belied through the police investigation.
- 4(sic.) We have heard both the learned Advocates Supreme Court appearing for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 14-12-2012 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal M. No. 14868-BC of 2011)
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395, 412, 420, 468, 471, 447 & 511
Dacoity, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal trespass
Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of
Civil dispute
Police filing negative report qua guilt of accused
Effect
Accused persons who were police officials allegedly beat up the complainant party, confined them in a car and took away their paddy crop
Dispute between the parties was of civil nature as bone of contention between parties was the rice crop in question
Matter had been thoroughly investigated by the police authorities who filed a negative report before the court insofar as the guilt of accused persons was concerned
Consequently false allegation against accused persons could not be ruled out
Petition for cancellation of bail awarded to accused persons was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
This petition impugns the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court (Lahore) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.14868-CB of 2011 of 2010(sic.) filed by the petitioner whereby same was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the respondents Nos.2 to 14 were granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur in F.I.R. No.153 dated 2-4-2009 registered under sections 395, 412, 420 468, 447, 471, 511, P.P.C. at Police Station Sarai Mughal, Kasur. The complainant/petitioner filed the afore mentioned Miscellaneous Application before the learned Lahore High Court for cancellation of said concession to the said respondents which as noted above was dismissed and hence this petition.
3. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition has firstly submitted that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was due to the fact that some of the private respondents were police officials and hence they effectively thwarted petitioner's attempt to lodge the F.I.R. in question. Finally the said F.I.R. was lodged through the intervention of the Courts of Law as the allegations against the private respondents are that they beat up the complainant party, confined them in a car and took away their paddy crop which prima facie constitutes a criminal act and for which purpose ample evidence was available with the petitioner in the shape of eye-witnesses etc. Hence the concession of pre-arrest bail was wrongly extended to the private respondents as there is no allegation of mala fides etc. against the complainant. Learned Advocate Supreme Court further submits that the incident itself is not denied by the private respondents as according to them the crop was taken away by the parties who were declared as the owner thereof in arbitration proceedings between them.
4. On the other hand, Rana Arif, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the private respondents, submits that the petitioner is the tenant of respondent No.9 Muhammad Iqbal and had filed a suit against him and others for pre-emption which was compromised and decreed. Hence in fact the private respondents in consequence of such decree had taken away the rice in question and all the allegations of applying force for this act and manhandling of the complainant party have been belied through the police investigation. 4(sic.) We have heard both the learned Advocates Supreme Court appearing for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
5. Prima facie it appears that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature as the bone of contention between the parties is the rice crop in question. The matter has been thoroughly investigated by the police authorities who have filed a negative report insofar as the guilt of the private respondents is concerned before the court in question. Consequently false allegation etc. cannot be ruled out at this stage.
6. In these circumstances we do not find any defect or other material irregularity in the impugned judgment which would convince us to interfere in the matter. Consequently this petition is dismissed and leave refused. MWA/M-23/SC Petition dismissed.