2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD WAKEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADAR, PATTOKI,
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WAKEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADAR, PATTOKI, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD WAKEEL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADAR, PATTOKI,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
- Khurshid Anwar Bhindar, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑.‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154‑‑‑Constitutiona petition‑‑‑Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑‑Case was registered in November, 1996 ant the matter was still hanging on‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner/accused was found guilt during the investigation‑‑‑Petitioner/accused was directed by High Court to move an application under S.249‑A, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court if the challan had already been submitted which shall be decided by it within one month of its filing‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed o1 accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, petitioner has sought quashment of a case registered vide F.I.R. No.395, dated 12‑11‑1996 under section 365, P.P.C. with Police Station, Saddar Pattoki on the ground that the case is old; that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and that there is no incriminating evidence to warrant conviction of the petitioner.
2. Comments submitted by the S.H.O. are to the effect that during investigation, petitioner was found guilty.
3. I would not like to comment on the veracity of the averments made in the petition lest it may prejudice the case of either side. F.I.R. was registered as far back as November, 1996 and the matter is still hanging on. In the afore‑referred circumstances and in view of the contention raised by petitioner's learned counsel, I am persuaded to dispose of this petition with the observation that if the challan has already been submitted in the trial Court, petitioner may move an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Court shall decide the same within a month of its presentation. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1256/L Order accordingly