2006 PLP 2815 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2815 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2815 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2815 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2815 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ahmad Mansoor Chishti for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Through this petition, Muhammad Nawaz has sought quashment of F.I.R. No.42 registered at Police Station Musafarkhana on 18-2-2003 for offence under section 188, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, it was alleged in the F.I.R. that accused violated the order dated 3-5-2002 passed by the District Nazim, Bahawalpur, under section 144, Cr.P.C. prohibiting the tenants from removing the harvested crops without giving shares to the owners.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to provisions of section 195(1) (a) of Cr.P.C., no Court was competent to take cognizance of the offence unless a complaint, in writing, was made by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. While in the instant case the case has been registered on the statement of a private person, namely, Muhammad Athar son of Rab Nawaz, respondent No.4. The learned A.A.-G. has frankly conceded that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 has vehemently opposed this petition and has argued that the accused had removed the crop without paying due share to the complainant and, thus, had committed a heinous offence. However, the learned counsel failed to meet with the legal proposition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. Undeniably, in the instant case the order under section 14'4, Cr.P.C. was passed by the District Nazim; hence, the cognizance could only be taken on the complaint, in writing, either made by him or by higher authority to whom he was subordinate, whereas in the present case, F.I.R. was lodged on the statement of a private person Muhammad Athar, which, as held by this Court in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1554 and also by Sindh High Court in the case of Nizamuddin Samejo and others v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate and others (1988 PCr.LJ 986) is violative of the provisions of section 195 (1) (a) of the Cr.P, Code. Thus, the proceedings, as initiated vide F.I.R. No.42 dated 18-2-2003 of Police Station Musafarkhana, are void ab initio and are hereby quashed. H.B.T./M-412/L????????? ????????????? Petition allowed.