2000 PLP 1122 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMEEL AKHTAR SHEHZAD, CIVIL JUDGE/MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, DUNYA PUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and others‑‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1122 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMEEL AKHTAR SHEHZAD, CIVIL JUDGE/MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, DUNYA PUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and others‑‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1122 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1122 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1122 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMEEL AKHTAR SHEHZAD, CIVIL JUDGE/MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, DUNYA PUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and others‑‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 169‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/16‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Discharge of accused‑‑‑Meaning and nature of discharge order‑‑ Magistrate empowered under S.30, Cr.P.C. on report of‑ local police to discharge the accused‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Police report showed that victim had not supported allegations against the accused and that victim's earlier statements implicating accused had been made by her at‑the behest of others‑‑‑Order of discharge of accused was merely an administrative/executive order regarding custody of accused and same could not be construed to be an order regarding cancellation of a criminal case or termination of prosecution‑‑‑Order of discharge would only mean that physical custody of accused was not required for the time being and upon discovery of fresh evidence or availability of fresh material local police could always re‑investigate the matter after getting necessary permission in that regard from the Magistrate‑‑‑Order of discharge passed by Magistrate S.30, Cr.P.C. being a reasoned order not suffering from any perversity of reasoning or illegality of approach, was correct and could not be interfered with in Constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
Allowed and disposed of Mian Petition.
2. Through this petition the petitioners have called in question the order, dated 3‑3‑1999 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30 Dunyapur whereby respondent No.3 was discharged in case F.I.R. No.241 registered at Police Station City Dunyapur, District Lodhran on 6‑6‑1998 for offences under sections 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. It has been noticed that petitioner No. l is the complainant of the above‑mentioned criminal case whereas petitioner No.2 is the alleged victim. On 22‑2‑1999 the local police had submitted a report before the learned Illaqa Magistrate recommending discharge of respondent No.3 as, according to the said report, the victim had not supported the allegation against respondent No.3 before the police and had further stated that her earlier statements implicating respondent No.3 had been made by her at the behest of others. Agreeing with the said reprots the ,learned Magistrate section 30, Dunyapur had passed the impugned order whereby respondent No.3 was discharged.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents annexed with this petition it may be observed. that an order of discharge is merely an administrative executive order regarding custody of an accused person. It, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to be an order regarding cancellation of a criminal case or termination of prosecution. It is settled law that an order of discharge only means that physical custody of an accused person is not required for the time being and upon discovery of fresh evidence or availability of fresh material the local police can always re‑investigate the matter after getting the necessary permission in that regard from the concerned Magistrate. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate section 30, Dunyapur on 3‑3‑1999 is a reasoned order and have found no perversity of reasoning or illegality of approach therein. In view of the fact that the victim herself had not supported the prosecution case before the local police it appears that the local police was quite justified in seeking discharge of respondent No.3 and the learned Magistrate was also amply justified in passing the impugned order.
4. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the observations made above regarding the criminal case being still alive the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed and their apprehensions allayed.
5. In view of this statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners no further action is called for in this petition and the same is disposed of within the observations made above. Order accordingly.