1987 PLP 1000 (MLD)
IRSHAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SIDDIQUI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1000 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hayee Kureshi, CJ |
| Parties | IRSHAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SIDDIQUI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1000 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1000 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1000 (MLD) (IRSHAD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SIDDIQUI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A--Complaint against co-accused dismissed not on merit but only for reasons of default--Such dismissal not reacting on case of accused who absconded--Contention that complaint filed to pressurise accused 'not true-Allegation if proved likely to result in conviction of accused--Application for quashing not allowed.
Judgment & Decree
This application is for quashment of a complaint that has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the present applicant and co-accused Masood and Akhlaq Ahmad. The first contention of Mr. Faizanul Haq is that on account of absence of the complainant the two co-accused namely, Masood Ahmad and Akhlaq Ahmad were acquitted under section 247, Cr.P.C. Mr. Faizanul Haq, however, admits that the present applicant who is the third accused in the case was not before the trial Court and had in fact been declared a proclaimed offender because he was out, of Pakistan, having gone away to Saudi Arabia. The factual position then is that at the date when the trial Court passed an order under section 297, Cr.P.C., the present applicant had neither been apprehended nor had the process of the trial started against him. In any case dismissal of complaint even against co-accused was not on merit but only for reasons of default. Such dismissal will, therefore, not react on the case of the petitioner who admittedly had not even appeared before the trial Court and .pas absconding. ' The next contention of Mr. Faizanul Haq is that the complaint was false and has been filed solely with a view to pressurise the present applicant accused. Admittedly no evidence has yet been recorded and it will be premature to even venture an argument that the case would fail or was filed solely with a view to pressurise or harass the present applicant /accused. On the reading of the complaint it appears that allegations have been made which, proved or believed, could result in conviction of the applicant. Such argument is premature. I see no substance in this application which I dismiss in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.