1982 P Cr (PLP)
Haji ALLAH BACHAYO‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | 2. C. Valiani, J |
| Parties | Haji ALLAH BACHAYO‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: 2. C. Valiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (Haji ALLAH BACHAYO‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 29th March, 192.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 561‑A & 110/55‑Quashment of proceedings‑Locus standi
Application for quashment of proceedings under S. 110/55, Cr. P. C. against his minor son, moved by applicant father‑Contention that application not having been moved by aggrieved person it was not maintainable and liable to be set aside on this ground alone
Contention, held, correct.‑[Locus standi]. Kazi Hafizullah for Applicant. Imam Bux for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kazi Hafizullah for Applicant. Imam Bux for the State. Date of hearing : 29th March,
192. Applicant is the father of Ghulam Nabi Laghari who is minor and aged about 16 years, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of School Certificate which is at page 21.
2. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, that police submitted a report under section 110155, Cr. P. C. in the Court of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Tando Allahyar against Ghulam Nabi Laghari, the minor son of the present applicant on 31st July, 1980, which is Annexure "Il" to the above petition. According to the learned counsel, mere vague allegations are made against the said Ghulam Nabi and two cases which are mentioned in the said report, which were supposed to be pending against said Ghulam Nabi only one case was challaned is respect of Crime No. 29/80 in which Ghulam Nabi was discharged. In the said case, according to the learned counsel the S. H. O. who made the report, was the only witness. As far as the second case is concerned, learned counsel submitted that it has not been challaned at all. Learned counsel further submitted, that the proceedings initiated under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. on the basis of such vague, and general allegations, amount to abuse of the process of the Court, specially when no convictions are cited against Ghulam Nabi. In support of these contentions, learned counsel has relied on cases reported. in P L D 1981 Kar. 50, 1980 P Cr. L J 363 and 1980 P Cr. L J 953, and submitted that this is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against Ghulam Nabi, the minor son of the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, pointed out, that since Ghulam Nabi himself has not moved an application for quashment of the proceedings, the present Petition which is filed by his father, is not legally maintainable and as such on this ground alone is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have agree with the contention of the learned State counsel, that since the applicant is not an aggrieved party, anti Ghulam Nabi himself has not come forward for quashment of the proceedings, pending against him, the above Petition is ‑not maintainable.
5. Therefore, I dismiss the above Petition on the ground, that ii is not maintainable by the present applicant. However, Ghulam Nabil Laghari will be at liberty to move fresh petition, if he is so advised, in his own name. Petition dismissed.