2004 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL RASHEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RASHEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 16‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.155 & 156‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑‑Offence under S.16 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, being a non‑cognizable offence, F.I.R. thereunder could not be registered and no investigation thereon could take place without the prior permission of the Magistrate as provided by Ss.155 & 156, Cr. P.C. ‑‑‑Prosecution had conceded to the said legal proposition admitting that the complaint had been registered without the prior permission of the Magistrate‑‑‑F.I.R. was quashed accordingly. M.M. Bashir, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.5921‑Q of 2000/BWP, decided on 18th January, 2002. ‑‑‑‑S. 16‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.155 & 156‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑‑Offence under S.16 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, being a non‑cognizable offence, F.I.R. thereunder could not be registered and no investigation thereon could take place without the prior permission of the Magistrate as provided by Ss.155 & 156, Cr. P.C. ‑‑‑Prosecution had conceded to the said legal proposition admitting that the complaint had been registered without the prior permission of the Magistrate‑‑‑F.I.R. was quashed accordingly. Ch. Abdul Ghaffar Bhutta for Petitioner. M.M. Bashir, A.A.‑G. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that F.I.R. No.427 of 2000 registered under section 16 of M.P.O. 1960 is not competent, as the offence is a non‑cognizable offence and it cannot be registered and no investigation thereupon can take place without the prior permission of the Magistrate as provided by sections 155 and 156, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned A.A.‑G. concedes that the complaint has been registered upon the complaint of Muhammad Rizwan Malik without the prior, permission of the Magistrate. In this view of the matter as the complaint has not been competently filed the F.I.R. No.427 of 2000 is directed to be quashed. N.H.Q./A‑18/L F.I.R. quashed.