1982 PLP 101 (SCMR)
M. LATIF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 101 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. LATIF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 101 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 101 (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: 1982 PLP 101 (SCMR) (M. LATIF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980.
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A -Quashment of criminal proceedings-Authority of Court to proceed with case challenged-Application for quashment of proceedings not proper remedy-Applicant, held, to raise such objection before trial Court-Trial Court, in circumstances, held further, to take up such objection as to jurisdiction in first instance, dispose it of by a speaking order and to proceed with case only after coming to conclusion of having jurisdiction to proceed with matter on merits Application for quashment of proceedings rejected as premature. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 4‑10‑1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before Mr. Muhammad Yaqub, Magistrate First Class with section 30 Powers, Lahore was rejected as premature.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has contended that the learned Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to summon the petitioner and that the view of the learned Single Judge that the petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings was premature was not justified because the very authority of the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner was challenged.
3. We do not think that the learned Judge in the High Court had com mitted any error of law in holding that the objection whether the learned Magistrate did have the jurisdiction or not to proceed with the matter was an issue that could be raised before him and that he should determine it in the first instance i.e. therefore, the petition for quashment was premature. We would like to observe that the learned Magistrate shall take up the objection regarding his jurisdiction in the first instance and dispose it of by a speaking order at the outset of the proceedings and it is only after he has come to the conclusion that he indeed has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on merits, that he may continue the proceedings.
4. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.