1973 PLP 135 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ CHUGHTAI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1973 PLP 135 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ CHUGHTAI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 135 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 135 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 135 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ CHUGHTAI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Arif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing; 1st February 197,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High ' Court, Lahore, dated the 19th June 1972, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1548 of 1968). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526 (e)‑Transfer of criminal cases‑High Court‑Amply empowered to transfer any case pending at one place to any other place within its jurisdiction‑Insti tution of complaint in wrong jurisdiction‑Does not mean end of complaint so as to disable its transfer to right jurisdiction. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑A complaint' was filed against the petitioner .by the Chairman, Union Committee, Ward No. 56, Lahore, on the complaint of the petitioner's wife, Mst. Shamim Akhtar. under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for having allegedly contracted a second marriage with one Mst. Naheed Akhtar at Rawalpindi, without seeking the previous permission of the Arbitration Council. The complaint was marked for disposal to the Ilaqa Magistrate by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and objected to his jurisdiction to try the case, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try the case as the offence had been committed in Rawalpindi and not in Lahore within his territorial jurisdiction. This application was rejected. The petitioner then moved the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., praying for quashment of the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Lahore Magistrate to try this case. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has accepted this part of the petitioner's prayer, but has directed that the complaint shall be forwarded to the competent Magistrate for disposal at Rawal pindi. The petitioner being aggrieved by this part of the order has come up for special leave to appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint itself having been incompetently instituted, it should have been treated as a dead letter and not forwarded to the Rawalpindi jurisdiction. We do not agree. The High Court has ample powers to transfer any case pending at one place to an other place within its jurisdiction, and the fact of instituting a complaint in wrong jurisdiction does not mean the end of a complaint. We think that no exception can be taken to the order of the High Court. If, however, the petitioner has any objection to the in-competency of the complaint on any ground, the same can be urged by him before the trial Magistrate, who will decide the objection according to law. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.