1989 P (PLP)
Mian ZAHID SARFRAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | Mian ZAHID SARFRAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P (PLP) (Mian ZAHID SARFRAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 182‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.195 & 561‑A‑‑ Proceedings, quashing of‑‑Accused making FIR under S.406/420, Penal Code against someone‑‑FIR cancelled by Magistrate on basis of Police report‑‑Accused was subsequently proceeded against under S.182, P.P.C.‑‑Complaint not filed by official with whom FIR lodged‑‑Complaint under S.182 being violative of S.195, Cr. P. C. held, was incompetent and could not be taken Cognizance of‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑). 182‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S.561‑A‑‑Proceedings, quashing of‑‑Accused making report to Police under S.406/420, P.P.C. against a person receiving draft of Rs. 17,000 from accused for purchasing car for him‑‑Said person later selling car to someone else‑‑F.I.R. lodged by accused was cancelled by Magistrate‑‑Accused was proceeded against under S.182, P.P.C.‑‑Information laid by accused before Police might not constitute an offence but was largely found true‑‑Accused, held, could not be guilty under S.182, Cr. P. C.‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Akram for AA.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Bilal for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram for AA.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988. Mian Zahid Sarfraz, petitioner herein, lodged a report with Islamabad Police Station on 25‑5‑1971 alleging that on 19‑5‑1971 Sh. Pervez of Shahid Brothers showed him a car said to be belonging to an American acid made him believe that he would get him that car for a fair price. He was told that the bargain would be finalized after its owner would return from outstation. Assuring the petitioner that after purchasing said ear from the said American (Mr. Leon) it would be sent to him Sh. Pervez got a bank draft of Rs.17.000 as price of the car from the petitioner. The petitioner learnt subsequently that Sh. Pervez had got that car sold to somebody else. On this report a case under section 406/420 P.P.C. was registered by SI Raja Nusrat Ullah SHO against Sh. Pervez. After investigation the case was recommended for cancellation. The Ilaqa Magistrate, vide order, dated 29‑10‑1971, cancelled the case accordingly and directed that action under section 182 Cr. P. C., be initiated against the complainant/petitioner. In pursuance thereof a complaint signed by SDPO Islamabad was filed in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 14‑8‑1972. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant petition has been filed under section 561‑A Cr. P. C. on behalf of the petitioner praying that proceedings in the said case be quashed being illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.
3. It is contended that the case in its present form cannot proceed for the reason that the report (complaint) submitted in the Court is signed by a 1?SP and not by SI Raja Nusrat Ullah who had recorded the FIR of the petitioner said to be false as section 195 Cr. P. C. envisages that a Court can take Cognizance of an offence under section 182 P.P.C. only on the complaint in writing made by public servant to whom the alleged false information was given. It is further argued that the information given to the police by the petitioner was not false, rather it was true information because the Investigating Officer in his report has held that the accused, namely, Sh. Pervez had not committed any offence though he had broken his promise made with the petitioner by having got the car sold to a person other than the petitioner. Learned State counsel has not seriously opposed the petition.
4. Admittedly, the FIR ordered to be cancelled by Magistrate 1st Class on the recommendation of the police was lodged by the petitioner with SI Raja Nusrat Ullah who has not submitted the complaint against him under section 182 P.P.C. to the Court for trial, therefore, the report being violative of the provisions of section 195 Cr. P. C. is incompetent and cannot be taken cognizance of. Furthermore, I find that it is mentioned in aforesaid police report that Sh. Pervez did receive a draft of Rs. 17,000 from the petitioner for purchasing a car for him which was earlier shown to him but subsequently he got that car sold to somebody else. May be, the information laid by the petitioner with the police did not constitute an offence but it was largely found as true. Therefore, to my mind f the petitioner can hardly be held guilty under section 182 P.P.C. either.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Magistrate. 1st Class, Rawalpindi, are hereby quashed being in the nature of abuse of process of the Court. SA./‑Z‑80/L Proceedings quashed.