988 PLP 484 (MLD)
INAYAT ULLAH Ch., Advocate — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL, POLICE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 988 PLP 484 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | INAYAT ULLAH Ch., Advocate — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL, POLICE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 988 PLP 484 (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 988 PLP 484 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 988 PLP 484 (MLD) (INAYAT ULLAH Ch., Advocate — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL, POLICE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farani Bar-at-Law for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.156 Police rules,1934, R 25.1-- --Investigation--Allegations levelled against Police Officials found false after examining witnesses and case recommended for cancellation--Contention of the complainant that neither the offenders were arrested nor Investigating Officer acted in accordance with law because they happened to be Police Officials, held of no avail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S.156 Police rules,1934, R 25.1-- --Investigation--Allegations levelled against Police Officials found false after examining witnesses and case recommended for cancellation--Contention of the complainant that neither the offenders were arrested nor Investigating Officer acted in accordance with law because they happened to be Police Officials, held of no avail in circumstances. M. Farani Bar-at-Law for Petitioner. Through this constitutional petition, Inayat Ullah Chaudhry petitioner wants the Court to direct the police to investigate into the F.I.R No. 303/87 registered at P.S. Misri Shah, Lahore ran 7-10-1987 under various sections of Pakistan Penal Code against Muhammad Akram Cheema Inspector and 18 other Police officials, in accordance with law. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police after having registered the case against the police officials has not acted in accordance with the police rules and have not arrested the culprits simply because they are police officials. On 20-12-1987 I had directed DSP Naulakha to record the statements of the witnesses who may be produced before him by the petitioner/ complainant and act in accordance with Police Rules. Thereafter the DSP recorded the statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant/petitioner. The DSP has found the case of the petitioner to be false and has recommended for the cancellation of the same. 2. Since the DSP after thorough investigation has found the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the police officials to be false and has recommended for the cancellation of the case, I feel that no further action can be is petition. The petitioner may file complaint against the police officials taken in this so advised. S.G.D./I-86/L Writ petition dismissed.