PCRLJ 1981

1981 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL LATIF DAR-Petitioner Versus MARYAM ZAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 2760 of 1979, decided on 26th November, 1980.
Honorable Judges
Abaid Ullah Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1981 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abaid Ullah Khan, J
Parties ABDUL LATIF DAR-Petitioner Versus MARYAM ZAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL LATIF DAR-Petitioner Versus MARYAM ZAMANI AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • M, Farani, Bar-at-Law for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Sarwar Awan for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
  • Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406/420-Complaint against petitioner for criminal liability after civil suit pertaining to some amount brought by respondent against him dismissed both by Civil Judge and District Court-Dispute appearing to be purely of civil nature and same having been concluded in favour of petitioner

Held, no more justification for continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioner except an abuse of process of Court

Criminal proceedings quashed,--[Abuse of process of Court].

Judgment & Decree

Art. 199 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406/420-Complaint against petitioner for criminal liability after civil suit pertaining to some amount brought by respondent against him dismissed both by Civil Judge and District Court-Dispute appearing to be purely of civil nature and same having been concluded in favour of petitioner

Held, no more justification for continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioner except an abuse of process of Court

Criminal proceedings quashed,--[Abuse of process of Court]. M, Farani, Bar-at-Law for Petitioner. Muhammad Sarwar Awan for Respondents Nos. 4 and

5. Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are these. Mst, Maryam Zamani, respondent 4, is the sister of Abdul Latif Dar, the petitioner, and wife of Ilama Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi, respondent

5. Brother and sister catered into partnership business to run a school. Sometimes afterwards Trey fell out and site started civil as well as criminal proceedings against kiln in respect of its. 3,

000. Once her complaint under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code was dismissed she brought another complaint. The Court of Session. Gujranwala by its order dated the 19th April, 1979, accepted respondent 4's revision petition against dismissal of her complaint for non-prosecution on the 6th August, 1977. The petitioner impugns the validity of the aforesaid order as also seeks quashment of proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that his criminal liability is in no way established,

2. The civil suit pertaining to the same amount brought by respon dent 4 against the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, and her appeal to the District Court, Gujranwala, met the same fate. In these circumstances the dispute appears to be of a purely civil nature and as the same has been concluded in favour of the petitioner there is no justification for continuation of criminal proceedings against him. Again proceedings of the criminal complaint would amount to no more than abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, proceedings of criminal complaint filed by the respondent 4 against the petitioner are quashed. Proceedings quashed.