2021 PLP 468 (SCMR)
JAMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 468 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | JAMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 468 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 468 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mushir Alam and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 468 (SCMR) (JAMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdus Saleem Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 04.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Balochistan in C.P. No.631/2014)
Ss. 22-A & 22-B
Thumb impression on an arbitration agreement
Petitioner claiming that the said thumb marks were not his; the arbitration instrument was fake and forged, therefore, directions should have been given by the Justice of Peace for registration of FIR against the respondents
High Court declined to issue a direction for registration of a criminal case on the ground that prima facie the dispute inter se the parties was of civil nature as both sides were asserting their divergent claims on a common land, and that inordinate delay and availability of alternate remedies were other considerations that didn't warrant a direction for registration of FIR
Held, that report submitted by the police did not support petitioner's claim and there was consensus that both sides were locked in a dispute of civil nature
Against such peculiar backdrop, refusal by the Justice of Peace to issue direction to the Station House Officer and non-interference by the High Court therewith did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Jamal Khan, petitioner, is in contest over a piece of land with rival claimants; they relied upon an arbitration agreement, purportedly executed way back on 2.2.2000; according to him, the instrument is fake as he never thumb marked any such agreement and, thus, the respondents were liable to be prosecuted for forgery and fraud. After his failure with the local police, the petitioner approached a Justice of Peace albeit with no better fate; a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan declined to issue a direction for registration a criminal case on the ground that prima facie the dispute inter se the parties was of civil nature as both sides were asserting their divergent claims on a common land. Inordinate delay and availability of alternate remedies were other considerations that weighed with the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that accusation disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and as such a statutory duty was cast upon the Station House Officer to register a formal First Information Report so as to investigate the same and his failure was amenable to interference.
3. Heard.
4. Be that as it may, at the center of controversy is a thumb impression on an arbitration agreement being attributed to the petitioner, however, repudiated by him as forge. Report submitted by the police does not support petitioner's claim and there is consensus that both sides are locked in a dispute of civil nature. Against the above peculiar backdrop, refusal by the Justice of Peace to issue direction to the Station House Officer and non-interference by the High Court therewith do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw calling for intervention by this Court. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/J-7/SC Petition dismissed.