1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADIO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) 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 SADIO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner. CA. Rehman for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 154 & 156
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Registration of case and investigation by police
Petition seeking the direction of High Court for initiating penal action against police officials for investigating false cases against the petitioner at the behest of interested party
Protracted litigation between the petitioner and respondents (interested party) was going on over a piece of land and the parties were now before High Court in a civil revision
If at any stage the dispute between the parties was likely to give rise to the breach of peace, then the police had to perform its duty to prevent the same
As regards the registration of the case by the police against the two relations of the petitioner under Arms Ordinance, 1965, High Court at such stage did not consider expedient to intervene or to quash those proceedings
Constitutional petition seeking the direction of High Court for initiating penal action against the two Police Officers for registering false cases against the petitioner and his relatives at the behest of his opponents in the civil litigation was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Through this writ petition Muhammad Sadiq petitioner seeks the directions of this Court to D.S.P., Cantt. Gujranwala (respondent No.2) for initiating penal action against S.I. Ghulam Sarwar (respondent No.3) and S.H.O. Malik Abdul Wahid (respondent No.4), both of Police Station Cantt. Gujranwala, for registering false cases against the petitioner and his nephew at the behest of Taj Muhammad (respondent No.5) and Muhammad Nawaz (respondent No.6) against whom he had pending civil litigation in respect of a piece of land.
2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4, in their comments, have taken up the position that there was apprehension of breach of peace between respondents Nos.5 and 6 on the one hand and Muhammad Sadiq on the -other hand on account of a dispute in respect of the land and on the application of respondent No.6 security proceedings were taken against both the parties. They explained that Arif and Abbas, the relations of the petitioner, who were carrying illicit arms for the commission of crime, were apprehended and two cases under the Arms Act were registered against them in routine and not at the behest of respondents Nos.5 and
6. Respondent No.4 further explained that warrant of possession in respect of the disputed property of the parties were executed by the Revenue staff and the possession was handed over to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 but with these proceedings the police had nothing to do.
3. It appears that there has been protracted revenue/civil litigation between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents Nos.5 and 6 on the other in respect of a piece of land and they are now before this Court in Civil Revision No.702 of 1992 and the security proceedings may be its outcome. If respondents Nos.5 and 6 have taken possession of the land pursuant to the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, which is now under challenge in the connected civil revision, the police had apparently nothing to do with it but if this dispute was likely to give rise to the breach of peace, then the police had to perform its duty to prevent it.
4. As regards the registration of the case by the police against Arif and Abbas, the two relations of the petitioner under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, 8 this Court, at this stage, does not consider expedient to intervene or to quash those proceedings.
5. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. N.H.Q./M-1407/L Writ petition dismissed.