2000 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAMAR HAYAT GONDAL and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAMAR HAYAT GONDAL and another‑‑‑Respondents |
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: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAMEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAMAR HAYAT GONDAL and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q.M. Salim for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 19th May, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 382/452/148/149‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Magistrate by means of impugned order had cancelled the case on police report allegedly in a mechanical manner without application of his independent judicial mind‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, accused named in the F.I.R. who were necessary party having not been impleaded as party in the Constitutional petition, passing an effective order in their absence could adversely affect their interest as they were actual beneficiaries of the impugned order and valuable right had accrued in their favour‑‑‑Although the order of discharge being an administrative order was not amenable to appeal or revision, yet there was no bar for filing of private complaint on the same facts by the complainant even before the same Court, if it had jurisdiction to try the matter, which was to be decided in judicial proceedings‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Mst. Amtul Mobin alias Mst. Mobin Karim v. Magistrate Illaqa South Cantt., Lahore 1991 PCr.LJ 1075 ref. Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State 1997 SCMR 304; Arif Ali Khan and‑another v. The State and 6 others 1993 SCMR 187 and Bahadur and another v. The State and another PLD 1985 SC 62 rel. .
Judgment & Decree
Through this writ petition order, dated 14‑12‑1996 passed by the Magistrate for cancellation of case registered vide F.I.R. No.288 of 1996 under section 382/452/148/149, P.P.C. and section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VI of 1979, at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha, on police report has been impugned on the ground that the learned Magistrate has passed this order in a mechanical manner without application of his independent judicial mind. Reliance has been placed on Mst. Amtul Mobin alias Mst. Mobin Karim v. Magistrate Illaqa South Cantt., Lahore 1991 PCr.LJ 1075.
2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. It has been noticed that the accused persons named in the F.I.R. have not been impleaded as party in the present writ petition. They are necessary party and passing an effective order in their absence may adversely affect their interest as they are actual beneficiaries of the impugned order and valuable right has been accrued in their favour. Although the order of discharge, being an administrative order, is not amenable in appeal or revision petition, yet there is no bar for filing of private complaint on the same facts by the complainant even before the same Court, if it has jurisdiction to try the matter, which is to be decided in judicial proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State 1997 SCMR 304; Arif Ali Khan and another v. The State and 6 others 1993 SCMR 187 and Bahadur and another v. The State and another PLD 1985 SC 62.
3. I am not inclined to proceed any further in the matter in the absence of the necessary parties. The petitioner/complainant, if so advised, may file a private complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction, which if filed shall bell decided within a period of six months from the date of its receipt. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./A‑122/L Petition dismissed.