P L D 1965 (W (PLP)
ABDUL RAHIM AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. R. Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHIM AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. R. Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 (W (PLP) (ABDUL RAHIM AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Ss. 107, 112 & 117 Magistrate ordering inquiry in case under S. 107 ‑ Not bound to accept report made by police‑Competent to issue summons to opposite party in spite of favourable report from police. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Ss. 107 & 561‑A Serious allegations in information laid under S. 107‑Magistrate issuing summons to opposite‑party‑Order cannot be interfered with in application under S. 561‑A. Ameer Ahmad Khan for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Ss. 107 & 561‑A Serious allegations in information laid under S. 107‑Magistrate issuing summons to opposite‑party‑Order cannot be interfered with in application under S. 561‑A. Ameer Ahmad Khan for Applicants. This application under section 561‑A read with sections 439 and 435, Criminal Procedure Code, has been made by Abdur Rahim, Yaqub, Mst. Saeedan and Siddique against an order passed by Syed Aftab Husain, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, on a complaint (Exh. B) filed before him by Mst. Umar Elahi under section 107 read with section 117, Criminal Procedure Code. The order referred to above is to the effect that the summonses should be issued to the opponents (the applicants in the present case) for appearance before him on the 8th of June 1964.
2. It is, first of all, contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned trial Magistrate had chosen to order the issue of summonses against the applicant‑opponents, in spite of the fact that the report made by the police officer concerned was in their favour. It can hardly be controverted that he was not bound to accept the opinion expressed by the police officer concerned, and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was quite competent, if in his view, there were otherwise sufficient grounds to proceed against them, to order that the summonses should be issued against the applicants, opponents for appearance before him on a particular date.
3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that there was not sufficient material before the learned trial Magistrate to justify the issue of process against the applicant's opponents. This contention cannot be accepted, in view of the serious allegations made against them in the complaint (Exh. B). In the view of the learned Magistrate apparently they were sufficiently to serve as the basis for the, proceedings that he had initiated against the applicant's opponents by his order regarding the issue of summonses to them for appearance before him on a particular date. At that stage, he could not possibly have disregarded the allegations made in the said complaint and had to proceed further.
4. I do not think, therefore, this is a fit case for interference by this Court. This application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.