1984 PLP 1281 (MLD)
FAHIM AKHTAR and others — Petitioners Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (SIND) KARACHI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1281 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ |
| Parties | FAHIM AKHTAR and others — Petitioners Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (SIND) KARACHI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1281 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1281 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1281 (MLD) (FAHIM AKHTAR and others — Petitioners Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (SIND) KARACHI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9--Writ jurisdiction, invocation of--Writ jurisdiction of High Court invoked for issuing direction to Police authorities to register case under S. 307, P.P.C. instead of registering under S.324, P.P.C.--High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, held could not even tentatively form an opinion whether a particular offence falls under S. 307 or 324, P.P.C. as it requires recording of evidence--Issuance of writ declined, in circumstance.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.--In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought direction against the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Orangi Town and also Superintendent, Police Orangi Town that they should register F.I.R. against respondents No. 4 to 6 under section 307, P.P.C. instead of registering under section 324, P.P.C. which has been done. In our view this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot even tentatively form an opinion, whether a particular offence falls under section, 307 or under section 324, P.P.C. as it requires the recording of the evidence. The appropriate course for the petitioner would have been invoke the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has provided exhaustive machinery for such eventualities. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. S. G. D. Writ Refused.