1968 P Cr (PLP)
Choudhry NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE S. H. O., KAHNA KACHHA AND 4 OTHERS- — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | Choudhry NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE S. H. O., KAHNA KACHHA AND 4 OTHERS- — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (Choudhry NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE S. H. O., KAHNA KACHHA AND 4 OTHERS- — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by R Sheikh Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of west Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd April 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1436/1968). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491
Petition under S. 491 found rightly dismissed by High Court
Special leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the High Court whereby his application under section 491 of the Cr. P. C., complaining of the alleged detention of Mst. Saidan, allegedly his wife was dismissed. On 3-4-1968 when the case was taken up, the petitioner was absent. The S. H. O., who had been summoned as one of the respondents appeared in Court and stated that Mst. Saidan was already married to one Abdul Hamid and had disowned any material relation with the petitioner and had charged him for rape. The petitioner's application was rightly dismissed on the facts as found by the High Court and there is no valid ground for our interference. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.