1992 P Cr (PLP)
Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 18998)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 18998)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. with A.S. Hashmi for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 154‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Registration of case‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Criminal case against mother‑in‑law of petitioner had already been registered‑‑‑Petitioner had not longed any complaint before police officials for redressal of his grievance‑‑‑Constitutional petition appeared to be counter‑blast‑‑‑Petitioner if so advised, could approach the police authorities which were directed to entertain grievance of petitioner for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 2327 of 1991, decided on 30th March,1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 154‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Registration of case‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Criminal case against mother‑in‑law of petitioner had already been registered‑‑‑Petitioner had not longed any complaint before police officials for redressal of his grievance‑‑‑Constitutional petition appeared to be counter‑blast‑‑‑Petitioner if so advised, could approach the police authorities which were directed to entertain grievance of petitioner for disposal on merits in accordance with law. Masood Mirza for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. with A.S. Hashmi for Respondent According to the learned counsel a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. Learned counsel argues that an information was conveyed to the concerned S.H.O. in that behalf but no action has so far been taken by him against the accused. Learned Additional Advocate‑General opposes the petition tooth and nail. He argues that a criminal case has already been registered against the mother‑in‑law of petitioners under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.71 on 21‑2‑1991. According to the learned counsel the petition in hand is just a counterblast to the case having been registered against the mother‑in‑law of the petitioner. Be that as it may, there is nothing on the record to show that in fact petitioner has made some complaint against the accused before the higher police officer for the redressal of his grievance. In this view of the matter, petitioner if so advised, may approach Superintendent of Police, Jhang who shall entertain the grievance petition of the petitioner for its disposal on merits according to law. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of SA./M‑2967/L Order accordingly.