1995 PLP 1005 (SCMR)
UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1005 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1005 (SCMR) (UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 28‑7‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 1888/B/1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑High Court, after having converted the accused's application for bail before arrest into quashment petition had quashed all the proceedings taken in pursuance of the F.I.R. registered against them by means of the impugned order‑‑‑Observation made by High Court for having done so could not be challenged on any legal ground and the proceedings had been rightly quashed‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Shaukat Ali Doghar v. Ghulam Oasim PLD 1994 SC 281 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the order of the High Court dated 28‑7‑1993.
2. An F.I.R. was lodged against the private respondents. They filed an application for bail before arrest before the High Court. The High Court converted the application into quashment proceedings and quashed all the proceedings taken in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 9 dated 3‑4‑1993, registered at Police Station Chakrala, District Mianwali.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the High Court has erred in quashing the F.I.R. and its order is against the decision of this Court made in Shaukat Ali Doghar v. Ghulam Qasim (PLD 1994 SC 281). While passing the impugned order, the High Court has made the following observations: "I have asked the learned counsel for the complainant as to how his client and his relations know that the baby was strangulated to death after having born alive and he has not been able to give any plausible reply. He says that the fact of her murder would be ascertained from the post‑mortem of the dead body after its exhumation. This is no reason. The only intention of the complainant party and the police appears to be to heap insult and humiliation on the accused party and in the execution of their design they seem to have even the support of the local administration, including District Magistrate, who happened to pass an order in routine for the disinterment of the dead body of a female baby for post‑mortem." The above observation of the High Court cannot be challenged on any legal ground. The proceedings were rightly quashed. The petition has no force, the same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. N.H.Q./U‑59/S Leave refused.