YLR 2009

2009 PLP 1525 (YLR)

Mst. BENAZEER and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION PANO AKIL and 4 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Constitution Petition No. D-666 of 2007, decided on 29th October, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey and Abdur Rahman Faruq Pirzada, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 1525 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey and Abdur Rahman Faruq Pirzada, JJ
Parties Mst. BENAZEER and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION PANO AKIL and 4 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1525 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1525 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey and Abdur Rahman Faruq Pirzada, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1525 (YLR) (Mst. BENAZEER and another — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION PANO AKIL and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition---Allegation of violating order of the Court by the authorities---Authorities vide order were directed not to harass the petitioners and also not to arrest them till next date of hearing---Petitioners had alleged that authorities had violated said order--Petitioner had confounded that authorities in order to harass the petitioners and put them under pressure raided their house and arrested brother and nephew of petitioner and also had beaten one female and subsequently said both persons were released on bail under the orders of Sessions Judge---Allegation as levelled by the applicant of violating order of the court, did not seem to be proved, because as per said order, authorities were restrained only to the extent of the Petitioner and not to his full family, if any of them committed any crime---Counsel for the petitioners could not prove that petitioners were abducted as alleged by and said allegation was not made in application under disposal---Authorities, in circumstances had not violated any order of the court---After investigation challan having been submitted in the court, proper course for the petitioners would be to appear before that court and pursue the matter, if so advised.
  • Ghulam Shabir Shar for Petitioners.
  • Zulfiqar Ali Sangi for Respondent No.4.
  • Imtiaz Ali Soomro, Assistant Advocate General along with Mir Ahmed Chandio SPO, Abdul Sattar in-charge S.H.O., Pano Akil, Muhammad Abdullah Sangri, SIO. Pano Akil, Shamshad Hyder Shah, (Investigating Officer in Crime No.152 of 2007).
  • Referring to order dated 30-8-2007 whereby respondents were directed not to harass the petitioners and also not to arrest them till next date of hearing, it is contended that by learned counsel that respondents have violated this order, which constrained the petitioners to move contempt application under C.M.A. No.2298/2007. According to learned counsel for petitioners respondents in order to harass the petitioners and put them under pressure raided their house and arrested petitioner No.2.'s brother and nephew viz. Sono and Saindad and also beat one Mst. Saima. Subsequently both the above-referred persons were released on bail under the order of Sessions Judge, Sukkur.

Headnotes / Summary

Imtiaz Ali Soomro, Assistant Advocate General along with Mir Ahmed Chandio SPO, Abdul Sattar in-charge S.H.O., Pano Akil, Muhammad Abdullah Sangri, SIO. Pano Akil, Shamshad Hyder Shah, (Investigating Officer in Crime No.152 of 2007).

Judgment & Decree

Referring to order dated 30-8-2007 whereby respondents were directed not to harass the petitioners and also not to arrest them till next date of hearing, it is contended that by learned counsel that respondents have violated this order, which constrained the petitioners to move contempt application under C.M.A. No.2298/2007. According to learned counsel for petitioners respondents in order to harass the petitioners and put them under pressure raided their house and arrested petitioner No.2.'s brother and nephew viz. Sono and Saindad and also beat one Mst. Saima. Subsequently both the above-referred persons were released on bail under the order of Sessions Judge, Sukkur. Allegation as levelled by applicant of violating order of 30-8-2007, in view of the facts stated in the application does not seem to be proved because as per order dated 30-8-2007, respondents were restrained only to the extent of petitioners and not to his full family, if any of them commit any crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner No.1, in continuation of that act of the respondents, was also abducted by them but no such allegation has been made in the application under disposal not the application reflects that the arrest of these two persons namely Sono and Saindad and causing injury to Mst. Saima was just to put the petitioners under pressure to get them separated. So far the quashment of F.I.R. under Crime No.152/2007 it is stated by S.H.O. in-charge Police Station, Pano Akil, that after due investigation interim challan has been submitted in the Court of Ist. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Pano Akil. In view of above discussion we are of the view that the respondents have not violated any order of this Court. After submission of challan before concerned Court, proper course for the petitioners would be to appear before that Court and pursue the matter if so advised. With these observations petition is dismissed in limine along with the listed application. H.B.T./B-1/K Petition dismissed.