P L D 1954 Baghdad ulJadid 5 (PLP)
Sahibzada MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Complainant‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1954 Baghdad ulJadid 5 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hamid Malik, J |
| Parties | Sahibzada MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Complainant‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cheating‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1954 Baghdad ulJadid 5 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cheating‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1954 Baghdad ulJadid 5 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Hamid Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1954 Baghdad ulJadid 5 (PLP) (Sahibzada MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Complainant‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nisar Ahmad, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Complaint by person not actually cheated‑Locus standi‑Complaint dismissed. Where complaint under section 420 P. P. C. was preferred by a person not actually cheated. Held : that the complainant had no locus standi to make a complaint. The complaint was dismissed. 22 Cr. L J 672 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMID MALIK, J.‑This is a reference by the learned A. D. M., Bahawalpur recommending that the order of the Additional Magistrate Bahawalpur dated the 9th September, 1952 be set aside. The perusal of the record shows that one Ghulam Muhammad brought a complaint against Sahibzada Muhammad Hayat Khan under section 420 P. P. C. It was stated in the complaint that Sahibzada to deliver Rs. 400 to him and thereby had committed an offence under section 420 P. P. C. The complaint further showed that the amount in question was actually paid by one Allah Ditta. The learned Additional Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant, Ghulam Muhammad, issued process on the accused petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner applied to the A. D. M., who has forwarded the record to the High Court, with the recommendation that the Magistrate took a hasty action in issuing process against the accused. I may say that the grounds which prompted the learned A. D. M., for making this reference are not cogent in the eye of law. The learned A. D. M. should know that once a Magistrate is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for proceedings in the case then he can issue process on the accused. It is nowhere obligatory to make preliminary inquiry before issuing process for the attendance of the person complained against. However, I accept the reference on the short ground that the person defrauded and actually cheated has not filed a complaint. The complaint clearly connotes that the person actually cheated was Rana Khuda Bakhsh and therefore the present complainant had no locus standi to bring a complaint against the petitioner. In this connection reference may be made to 22 Cr. L J 672, where it was observed that " It is absurd, however, to expect a Court to take any notice of cheating except when it is put in by the person actually defrauded." I accordingly accept the reference and set aside the order of the Magistrate dated the 9th September 1952 and dismiss the complaint. It will however be open to the person who has been actually cheated to bring a complaint, if so advised. A. H. Order set aside.