2001 PLP 828 (MLD)
ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM, NABI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 828 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aftab Farrukh, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM, NABI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 828 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 828 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aftab Farrukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 828 (MLD) (ABDUL HAMID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM, NABI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- R.A. Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ . ‑‑‑‑Ss. 200 & 202‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 34 & 109‑‑ Complaint case‑.‑‑Accused filed counter‑complaint of the same incident in Trial Court against complainant, his father, brother and widow of the deceased after four months of the occurrence‑‑‑Complaint was entrusted to Magistrate for enquiry, who reported that trial of the case would further lead to real points‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Belated story advanced by accused was false and frivolous, after due deliberations, to rescue himself‑‑‑Enquiry Magistrate in his report had put the persons to trial without realising the mental torture and agony of trial of a murder charge‑‑‑Counter‑complaint of accused was rightly dismissed by Trial Court on cogent reasons‑‑‑Order of dismissal of complaint having been passed by a Court having jurisdiction, did not call for interference.
Judgment & Decree
R.A. Awan for Petitioner. For the murder of Muhammad Rashid on the 27th May, 1980 in the area of Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore the other brother i.e., Muhammad Nawaz lodged the first information report against yet another brother i.e., Abdul Hamid petitioner naming Abdul Hamid as the accused. Abdul Hamid petitioner has been challaned for the murder of his brother Muhammad Rashid which case was, as stated above, registered at the instance of Muhammad Nawaz, the other brother.
2. Four months after the incident Abdul Hamid petitioner (the accused in the challaned case) filed a private complaint naming the widow of Muhammad Rashid (deceased), her father and her brother as the assailants of f'` Muhammad Rashid deceased. This complaint was entrusted for enquiry to Mr. Nawab Din Saingal, Magistrate Section 30, who after enquiry submitted a report with the observation:‑‑-- "It is a case where a brother is murdered and the other is accused and in my view the story as established at this stage if put into trial would further lead to real points." It appears that the learned Enquiry Magistrate has taken the putting of a person on trial as a joke without realising the mental torture and agony of a person called upon to face a trial on a murder charge.
3. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi for very cogent reasons and taking a very fair view dismissed the complaint. I have gone through every 'word of his 5 page judgment and I am wholly in agreement with the view and reasons stated by him in detail. The reasons are so cogent that I cannot usefully or substantially add anything, as he has applied his mind diligently and rightly concluded. "The story narrated by the complainant is highly unnatural and cannot be believed." My own view is that the belated story being advanced by the petitioner is false and frivolous and set up after due deliberations by the family members to rescue the petitioner, who is facing a trial for the murder of the other brother i.e., Muhammad Rashid (deceased). I am also convinced that this is a false story and the complaint has been rightly dismissed. The impugned order has been passed with jurisdiction and does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. M.A.K./A‑141/L Revision dismissed