1990 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA ANJUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA ANJUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA ANJUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Butt for Petitioner.
- Submits that in the present case Inam-ul-Haq husband of Mst. Amna Bibi had given the said application on which no order could be passed. Submits that the application was given by the petitioner to the S.S.P., therefore, he alone could have decided to proceed against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. the S.H.O. concerned was not competent to take such an action. Contentions have been opposed by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182
Quashing of proceedings-- Application was moved by accused before Superintendent of Police for initiation of proceedings against husband and his wife alleging that they were running a brothel house and that his wife also indulged in Zina
Superintendent of Police sent application to Station House Officer of Police Station who after enquiry found allegations levelled by accused against husband and wife, baseless and submitted challan against accused under S.182, P.P.C: --Accused sought quashment of proceedings against him challenging competency of S.H.O. to take action against him
S.H.O., to whom application was sent by S.S.P. for inquiry, held, was competent to take action against accused.
S. 7
Accused proceeded against Offence of Qazf for alleging a woman indulging in Ziria
Contention that he could not be tried for offence, because under law proceedings could be taken against him only on application of woman against whom alleged false allegation had been levelled, while he had been proceeded on application of her husband was repelled observing that Trial Court while disposing of application for quashment had specifically mentioned that charge of Qazf was added in application of the woman.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading to the filing of this quashment petition are that the petitioner had given an application to S.S.P., Faisalabad, requesting for initiation of proceedings against one Mst. Amna Bibi and her husband Inam-ul-Haq with the allegation that they were running a brothel house and Mst. Amna Bibi also used to indulge in Zina. The application was enquired into by S.H.O. Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad, who found it baseless and submitted challan against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate amended the charge from Section 182, P.P.C. to section 7 of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner moved an application for the quashment of proceedings against him which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 10-4-1989. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot legally be tried for an offence of Qazf because under the law the proceedings can be taken only on the application of a person against whom false allegation has been levelled. Submits that in the present case Inam-ul-Haq husband of Mst. Amna Bibi had given the said application on which no order could be passed. Submits that the application was given by the petitioner to the S.S.P., therefore, he alone could have decided to proceed against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. the S.H.O. concerned was not competent to take such an action. Contentions have been opposed by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The application was moved by the petitioner before S.S.P. who, without taking any action sent it to the concerned S.H.O. In these circumstances, the S.H.O. was the competent persons to take action against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. Even otherwise also, this point would not be available to the petitioner any more because he would not be proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C. As far the contention of learned counsel that action under section 7 of Qazf Ordinance can Amna Bibi which order of the g has of petition H.B.T./M-/1865/L Petition dismissed.