1993 PLP 1774 (MLD)
TAHIR ZAMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AKBAR KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1774 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TAHIR ZAMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AKBAR KHAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1774 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1774 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1774 (MLD) (TAHIR ZAMAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL AKBAR KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Gadoon for Petitioners.
- Saeed Beg for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.468/471
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Criminal proceedings sought to be quashed had almost been completed and the case was ripe for announcement of order by the Magistrate
No interference, therefore, was called for by High Court in the proceedings at such stage
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Saeed Beg for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1983. By this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of proceedings against him pending in the Court of Magistrate Ist Class, Swabi under section 468/471, P.P.C. The relevant facts are that Mst. Anwar Zia respondent is the real sister of the petitioner: Their father and one brother Liaqat Zaman died and on their death respondent was entitled to her Shari share in the estate of her deceased father and brother but the petitioner got attested Mutation No.13331 in his favour depriving respondent of her Shari share. This mutation was challenged by the respondent in civil suit and in the course of proceedings the respondent filed F.I.R. against the petitioner alleging that she is being coerced and harassed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, therefore, there was no need of criminal resort by the respondent against the petitioner. The learned counsel urged that the step taken by the respondent against his client is nothing but to pressurise him to surrender to her claim in her civil suit. According to the learned counsel, the criminal proceedings in the present case brought by the respondent against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law in the circumstances of the case. While hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was brought to my notice that the criminal proceedings have almost been completed and the case is ripe for announcement of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes this position, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the proceedings at this stage and consequently this petition is i dismissed. N.H.Q./1456/P Petition dismissed.