1991 P Cr (PLP)
REHMAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (REHMAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shaukat Tarar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.561-A
Private complaint was pending in Court--Grounds for quashing the proceedings related to appreciation of evidence
Stifling of prosecution was declined with direction to Trial Court to dispose -of the complaint expeditiously to be concluded within one month,
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S.561-A
Private complaint was pending in Court--Grounds for quashing the proceedings related to appreciation of evidence
Stifling of prosecution was declined with direction to Trial Court to dispose -of the complaint expeditiously to be concluded within one month, Ch. Muhammad Shaukat Tarar for Petitioners. In support of this application seeking quashment of the proceedings in a private complaint, the learned counsel contends that the occurrence had taken place on 4th of April, 1984 and the private complaint was lodged on 24th of July, 1984 without putting forth the explanation of inordinate delay. It is further submitted that according to the contents of the complaint, the complainant party was dispossessed from the land, in respect of which, a civil suit had been filed by the petitioners, and it was pending between the parties. It was also submitted that according to the averment m complaint the complainant party was not in possession, therefore, the allegation as to the dispossession stands disbelieved. It is next submitted that on 27th of June, 1984, an application was moved to the Superintendent of Police for taking preventive proceedings against the petitioners' side and in that application, nothing was mentioned about the occurrence dated 4th of April, 1984, with regard to which, a private complaint has been filed. It is also submitted that there is no recovery, no medical evidence and entire allegations in the complaint are false. Be that as it may, all these allegations relate to appreciation of evidence. The first application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. was disposed of summarily and the crux of the matter was not adverted to. I am not inclined to stifle the prosecution on the basis of these allegations because the cross-examination of the witnesses would clear the entire matter. In this view of the matter, I direct the trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the complaint expeditiously so that the same stands concluded within a period of one month. The petitioner may, if .so advised, at a proper stage move the trial Court once again under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. SA./R-277/L . Petition dismissed.