1997 PLP 1506 (MLD)
RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1506 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J |
| Parties | RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1506 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1506 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1506 (MLD) (RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑ Complainant had allegedly exonerated the accused by having filed a sworn affidavit to such effect in the Trial Court‑‑‑Questions whether the complainant had really exonerated the accused and if so to what extent and whether no other material existed for conviction of accused could only be determined by Trial Court and accused had an alternate remedy to move an application there under S.265‑K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground urged before High Court‑‑‑No reasonable ground was available on the basis of which the proceedings pending before Trial Court might be quashed directly by High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑ Petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. Muhammad Zahid Khan, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑ Complainant had allegedly exonerated the accused by having filed a sworn affidavit to such effect in the Trial Court‑‑‑Questions whether the complainant had really exonerated the accused and if so to what extent and whether no other material existed for conviction of accused could only be determined by Trial Court and accused had an alternate remedy to move an application there under S.265‑K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground urged before High Court‑‑‑No reasonable ground was available on the basis of which the proceedings pending before Trial Court might be quashed directly by High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑ Petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. Muhammad Zahid Khan, Advocate. This petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, in a case punishable under section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The F.I.R. was lodged on 24‑9‑1995.on the allegation that taxi of the complainant was snatched on pistol point.
2. Quashment is sought on the ground that the complainant has exonerated the petitioner and has even sworn an affidavit to that effect, which has already been filed in the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the exoneration of the petitioner, as stated above, there is no evidence against the petitioner on the basis of which he may be convicted, and hence, the case deserves to be quashed.
3. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to move an application before the learned trial Court under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the ground urged before this Court. Whether the complainant has really exonerated the petitioner, and if so, to what extent, will have to be agitated and proved before the learned trial Court. Further, the question whether there is no other material on the basis of which conviction can be recorded, shall also be determined by the trial Court. There does not appear to be any reasonable ground on the basis of which the proceedings may be quashed directly by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the learned trial Court to seek his acquittal, by making appropriate application. For what has been stated above, this quashment petition is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./R‑20/L Petition dismissed.