1997 PLP 1526 (SCMR)
GHULAM SAJJAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1526 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SAJJAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1526 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1526 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1526 (SCMR) (GHULAM SAJJAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- S. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 20‑1‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Cr.Misc. No.2/96 in Crl. Appeal No.58/J of 1996). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 309/310‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Compromise‑‑‑High Court had rightly found on two occasions that the compromise allegedly effected between the parties was not valid as the father and mother of the deceased had made statements under undue influence and due to the fear of a "Peer"‑‑‑Such finding being not open to any exception did not warrant any interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly‑‑‑Petitioner, however, might again approach the High Court for recording the statements of the legal heirs of the deceased in the Court.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA. J.‑‑‑Learned Judges of the High Court have found on two occasions that the compromise said to have been effected between the parties was not quite valid. The learned Judges in their order dated 29‑9‑1996 observed that the statements of the father and mother of the deceased were made "under undue influence and due to the fear of Chazanfar Abbas Shah (Peer)". This finding is not open to any exception and we do not find it a fit case for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may again approach the High Court with the request that the statements of the legal heirs of the deceased may) be recorded in the Court. N.H.Q./G‑1/S Leave refused.