1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL RANJHA — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR INCHARGE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL RANJHA — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR INCHARGE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL RANJHA — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR INCHARGE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Ahmed Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Quashing of F.I.R.
Case was pending investigation
No finding from any quarter existed to show that the case registered against the accused was false or otherwise
Accused in such circumstances was directed to associate with the investigation and bring forth all the points raised in the petition to the notice of Investigating Officer
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that a case bearing F.I.R. No.13, dated 18-7-1992 was registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption (Establishment), Sialkot, for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Corruption of Prevention Act, 1947, against the petitioner at the instance of Sabir Hussain. Petitioner seeks quashment of the said case. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false. Argued that it was registered on account of mala tide on the part of the complainant. Submits that earlier the petitioner had moved an application and if the earlier petition is read with F.I.R. glaring discrepancies can be noted. Contended that if the investigation in the case is allowed to continue it would only amount the abuse of process of Court. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel and gone through all the documents. The case is pending investigation. There is no finding from any quarters that the case registered against the petitioner is false or otherwise. In these circumstances petition is directed to associate with the investigation and bring forth all the points to the notice of Investigating Officer. The writ A petition is being disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer that he shall hear the version of the petitioner, incorporate the same in the case diary and shall investigate. It is further directed that any document the petitioner wishes to rely in his defence shall be made part of the investigation file. N.H.Q_/M-1M5/L Petition disposed of.