PCRLJ 1989

1989 P Cr (PLP)

SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE and another Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 330 of 1988, decided on 19th February, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J
Parties SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE and another Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mast Ali Baloch for Respondent No.2.

Headnotes / Summary

‑Ss. 561‑A & 145‑‑Attachment of property‑‑Proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. initiated after status quo order was passed by Civil Court m respect of property in, dispute‑‑Legality‑‑Magistrate ordered property in dispute to be sealed after grant of status quo order by Civil Court‑‑Proceedings before Magistrate were quashed‑‑Show‑cause notice also issued to Magistrate initiating such proceedings. Attaullah Khan for Applicant. Imam Bux Shaikh for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Attaullah Khan for Applicant. Mast Ali Baloch for Respondent No.2. Imam Bux Shaikh for the State. The proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are pending against the applicant in the Court of A.C. and S.D.M. Bin Qasim. I have heard Mr. Attaullah Khan, for the applicant. It is argued that civil suit was filed by the applicant and status quo was ordered on 10‑8‑1988 and proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated on 22‑8‑1988. He submitted that in view of case reported in P L D 1970 SC 470 proceedings taken by the A.C.M. are not competent. He has also argued that applicant took this plea in the written objections filed before the A.C.M. but in spite of that he ordered that property be sealed. Mr. Mast Ali Baloch for the respondent No.2 submitted that order of the A.C.M. is in accordance with law as Court has stayed the proceedings by an order, dated 31‑8‑1988. Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh for the State has supported this quashment application. The status quo was ordered in civil suit by VIIIth Civil Judge, Karachi East on 10‑8‑1988 when the A.C.M. and S.D.M., Bin Qasim took cognizance on 22‑8‑1988 and passed an interim order whereby the property was sealed i.e. after the filing of the civil suit. A copy of the written statement filed by applicant has been placed on record in which it is stated that Civil Suit No. 1039 of 1988 has been filed and status quo order is operating but in spite of that A.C.M. had passed interim order and sealed the property. Finally on 31‑8‑1988 he has stated in his order that second party Advocate appeared and filed written statement and was informed that there is status quo granted by VIIIth Civil Judge, Karachi East, therefore, proceedings are stayed. This point needs clarification. In case of Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another reported in P L D 1970 SC 470 it has been held that Magistrate cannot under section 145, Cr.P.C. act in violation of a decree or the terms of an order passed by a Civil Court during the trial of the suit taken proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. It has also been observed that proceedings initially under section 145, Cr.P.C. are subordinate to decree or order passed by Civil Court in respect of the property in dispute before the Magistrate. The proceedings pending against applicant in the Court of A.C.M. Bin Qasim are quashed. Consequently all the interim orders passed by him stands vacated. Issue notice to the S.D.M. Bin Qasim to show cause why action should not be taken against him for passing the order about the property when it was pointed out that there was status quo granted by the Civil Court. He should appear in person on 12th March, 1989. M.Y.H./S‑45U/K Proceedings quashed.