1987 P Cr (PLP)
TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD MIAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD MIAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (TAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD MIAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Tayyib for Petitioners.
- Sh. Inayat Ali for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 203, 204, 436 & 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Complaint case‑‑Trial Court after recording preliminary evidence dismissing complaint and exonerating accused‑‑Revisional Court quashing order of Trial Court and ordering trial of accused‑‑Held, revisional Court could not go beyond order requiring Trial Court to make further inquiry into complaint and could not order trial of accused‑‑Petition for quashment accepted to the extent that Trial Court should make further inquiry into complaint which was dismissed by him. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Tayyib for Petitioners. Sh. Inayat Ali for Respondent No.1. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State. The petitioners have moved a petition for the quashment of order, dated 15‑5‑1985 pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Rahimyar Khan.
2. The petitioners were proceeded against in a complaint case under section 307/395/148/149, P.P.C. The learned trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence exonerated the petitioners. The other party lodged a revision petition which was accepted on 15‑5‑1985 and the order of the learned trial Magistrate, dated 22‑3‑1983 was quashed. While quashing the order of the trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan remarked that the Judicial Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the accused in accordance with law after issuing the summons or warrants, as the case may be, for the attendance of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, who are petitioners in this petition. With reference to section 436, Cr.P.C. it has been contended that the learned revisional Court can only order further inquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. He could not order trial of the accused.
3. The learned State counsel does not grudge this proposition of law.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to section 204, Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate while holding preliminary inquiry against the accused.
5. Obviously the learned revisional Court could not go beyond the order, requiring the Judicial Magistrate to make further inquiry into the complaint and could not order the trial of the accused as has been done in the impugned order. The petition is accepted to the extent that the Judicial Magistrate shall make further inquiry into the complaint which was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. M.Y.H./T‑13/L Order accordingly.