2004 PLP 380 (YLR)
GHULAM ABBAS ABBASI — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and
| Citation | 2004 PLP 380 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS ABBASI — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 380 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 380 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 380 (YLR) (GHULAM ABBAS ABBASI — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner.
- The learned Assistant Advocate -General was of the view that a Court could not take cognizance of a case until a competent complaint was made as, envisaged under section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.. which reads as follows:--
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 144 & 195(l)(a)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.188
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ,Art.199
Constitutional petition-- Cancellation of F.I.R.
Accused having been found firing in the air in violation of order passed by District Magistrate under S.144, Cr. P. C. , Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police lodged F.I.R. against accused-- Validity
Case filed against accused could not proceed before Magistrate concerned as Police ofcial/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police being not Authority in terms of 5.195 (1) (a), Cr. P. C., was not authorized to register case against accused
F. I. R. lodged against accused being invalid and illegal, was cancelled, in circumstances. Abdul Baqi and others v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 87; Muhammad Ayub alias Ranjha v. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Multan and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1039 and Muhammad ldrees v. The State and others 2001 PCr.LJ 593 ref. Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, Asstt. A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, Asstt. A.-G. The question for determination in this writ petition is whether the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad, who is respondent No.4, could lodge a complaint against the violation of an order under section 144, Cr.P.C. passed by the District Magistrate, Islamabad on 18-7-2003. Which the Assistant Sub- Inspector lodged on 1-9-2003 under provisions of section 188 of the P.P.C was registered vide F.I.R. No.265 1-9-2003. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was found firing in the air. The petitioner applied for his bail before arrest which was pending when this writ petition was filed, whereas, his co-accused got bail after arrest. The learned Assistant Advocate -General was of the view that a Court could not take cognizance of a case until a competent complaint was made as, envisaged under section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.. which reads as follows:-- "No Court shall take cognizance:- (a) Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants.
Of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the . Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate." The argument from the other side was that the provisions of section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. were explicit and simple and a complaint could only be made by the persons reflected therein. On the basis of the case reported as Abdul Baqi and others v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 87, it was said that a case could not proceed before a. Magistrate as the police official was not authorized to register a case, he was not the authority in terms of section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. But the present F.I.R. was invalid and illegal. Reference is also made to the cases of Muhammad Ayub alias Ranjha v. District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner, Multan and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1039 and Muhammad Idrees v. The State and others 2001 PCr.LJ
593. This Court respectfully agrees with the law laid down and referred to above. The F. I. R. in question is, therefore, invalid and illegal and be cancelled. H.B.T./G-312/L Petition allowed.