2019 PLP 1653 (MLD)
Maulana MUHAMMAD MOHSIN FAIZ — Applicant Versus Sheikh SIKANDAR HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1653 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Maulana MUHAMMAD MOHSIN FAIZ — Applicant Versus Sheikh SIKANDAR HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1653 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1653 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1653 (MLD) (Maulana MUHAMMAD MOHSIN FAIZ — Applicant Versus Sheikh SIKANDAR HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tasawar Hussain Zaidi for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in Crl. Revision Application No. 07/2013 and 209 of 2013 respectively).
- Ms. Rubina Qadir, A.D.P.P. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 423, 469, 471, 196, 195, 192 & 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 202(2)
Postponement of issuance of process
Magistrate to conduct investigation on the order of Court of Session
Defiling, etc., copy of Holy Quran
Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet and personages
Respondent had filed private complaint against applicants under Ss. 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 423, 469, 471, 196, 195, 192 and 34, P.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate
Judicial Magistrate sent the record of the case to the Sessions Judge
Sessions Judge recorded the statement of complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C. and ordered for sending the record to Judicial Magistrate for conducting preliminary enquiry
Sessions Judge, later on, directed the complainant to produce the objectionable material
Said orders were not complied with
Session Judge, after that, registered the complaint and issued bailable warrants of the applicants
Held, orders passed by Sessions Judge were not complied with, yet the complaint was registered
Preliminary enquiry should have been conducted while taking benefit of proviso (2) of S.202, Cr.P.C.
Investigation conducted by Magistrate would have been more appropriate in the circumstances of the case, who could also get assistance from specialized branch of police, which was mandated to conduct sensitive investigation
Preliminary enquiry was directed to be held accordingly
Bail bonds furnished by accused persons, as a consequence of registration of complaint, were discharged
Applications were disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, J.
I through instant order intend to dispose off Criminal Revision Application No. 07 of 2013 filed by Maulana Muhammad Mohsin Faiz against Sheikh Sikandar Hussain and others and in Criminal Misc. Application No. 209 of 2013 filed by Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Shaikh Sikandar Hussain and others, both in Private Complaint No. 479 of 2009. It was stated that the Private Complaint No. 479/2009 was filed by the respondent Sheikh Sikandar Hussain on 05.09.2009 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Karachi South against the applicant(s) and others for offences under Sections 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 423, 469, 464, 471, 196, 195 and 192/34, P.P.C. who sent it to learned Sessions Judge Karachi South being triable by Sessions Court. On 10.12.2009 statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C and R&Ps was ordered to be sent to the Court of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate IVth Karachi (South) for recording the preliminary enquiry by the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South). Later on another order was passed on 07.07.2011 by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South), whereby the complainant was directed to submit five volumes of said book and revised edition along with the legible copies of said Fatwa to be forwarded to them religious institutions for their opinions. This order was also not complied with However, on 11.02.2012 complaint submitted by the complainant side was registered and bailable warrants were issued against the applicants and other accused persons. During the course of hearing on 14.01.2013, operation of the impugned order was suspended by this Court for 21.01.2013 of respondent named above and the Prosecutor General Sindh. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the relevant record, it is evident that both the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judges on 10.12.2009 and 07.07.2011 were not complied with yet the complaint was registered. The learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South) while passing order dated 11.02.2012 first gone through the contents of the application, as it, evident from the order itself though it was required, in view of the orders passed by his predecessor and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the allegation contained in the complaint, for that preliminary enquiry should have been conducted taking benefit of proviso (2) of section 202, Cr.P.C, it would have been move appropriate in the circumstances of the present case of the investigation was to be conducted by the Magistrate, who would also get assistance, if necessities from such specialize branch of police, which is mandated to conduct such sensitive investigation. In view of the above discussion, orders passed on 11.02.2012 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South) is set aside with the direction that Preliminary Enquiry be held in terms of directions contained herein above. Bail bonds furnished by the accused persons as a consequences of the registration of complaint supra are hereby discharged. Cr. Revision Application No. 7 of 2013 and Cr. Misc. Application No. 209 of 2013 are hereby disposed off accordingly. SA/M-28/Sindh Order accordingly.