2025 PLP 784 (YLR)
ANAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONs JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE, and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 784 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ANAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONs JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE, and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 784 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 784 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 784 (YLR) (ANAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONs JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE, and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 154
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 10 & 10-A
Registration of FIR, order for
Petitioner (proposed accused) assailed order of registration of FIR having been passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace against him
Held that mere registration of a criminal case is not itself enough for the SHO/IO concerned to take away the fundamental rights of any person as enshrined under Arts. 9, 10 & 10-A of the Constitution, without sufficient incriminating material against the accused
High Court disposed of the petition with the direction that if the impugned order was implemented, the SHO/IO concerned was to take the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, record the petitioner's version, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, proceed further strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 had obtained the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 by concealing the material facts, which is liable to be set-aside. However, learned counsel would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the SHO/Investigating Officer concerned that upon implementation of order dated 01.06.2024 and then before proceeding further take oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioner.
2. Be that as it may, if the order dated 01.06.2024 is implemented, then the SHO/IO concerned is directed to take the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, record the petitioner's version, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, then to proceed further strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. However, it is made clear that mere registration of a criminal case is not itself enough for the SHO/IO concerned to take away the fundamental rights of any person as enshrined under Articles 9, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, without sufficient incriminating material against the accused. Reliance is placed upon the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haider Ali and another v. DPO Chakwal and others (2015 SCMR 1724). Learned Law Officer shall ensure compliance of this Court's order.
3. With these observations, the instant petition is disposed of accordingly. MQ/A-2/L Order accordingly.