2013 PLP 1037 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD MUSTHAQ — Petitioner Versus RAMZAN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1037 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSTHAQ — Petitioner Versus RAMZAN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1037 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1037 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1037 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD MUSTHAQ — Petitioner Versus RAMZAN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan Marwat for Petitioner.
- Saifur Rehman Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A & 154
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-B
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.
Quashing of F.I.R. by High Court in exercise of its inherent power
Scope
Plea of accused that contents of F.I.R. were false and frivolous
Commission of a cognizable offence had been alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R., which could not be adjudicated upon without proper investigation and enquiry on part of the local police and recording of pro and contra evidence in the court of competent jurisdiction
Petition for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed accordingly. Bashir Ahmad v. Zafer-ul-Islam PLD 2004 SC 298 and Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 rel. Sanaullah Khan Shamim, D.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.
Through the instant petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Mushtaq, has sought the quashment of F.I.R. No.121 dated 24-9-2012 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Band Korai D.I.Khan, mainly on the ground that the contents of the F.I.R. ibid are totally false and frivolous.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this petition for quashment of the F.I.R. in question is based on sound reasons and, as such, the F.I.R. ibid is liable to be quashed being baseless and frivolous.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposed the petition and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of it on the ground that since a cognizable offence has allegedly been committed by the petitioner which requires proper investigation, enquiry and pro and contra evidence in the court of competent jurisdiction. 3(sic) After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the complainant/respondent No.1 in his initial report has alleged the commission of a cognizable offence allegedly committed by the petitioner which cannot be adjudicated upon without proper investigation and enquiry on the part of the local police and recording pro and contra evidence in the court of competent jurisdiction.
4. As such, without dilating upon the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice the case of either party during trial, I find no substance in this quashment petition, hence the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Reliance is placed on the case law/dictom laid down by the honourble apex court in the judgments reported as Bashir Ahmad v. Zafer-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 298) and Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. Ali Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813). MWA/100/P Petition dismissed.