2001 PLP 2985 (YLR)
M. INAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2985 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and Naeem Ullah Khan Sherwani, JJ |
| Parties | M. INAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2985 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2985 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and Naeem Ullah Khan Sherwani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2985 (YLR) (M. INAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.417‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337/109/148/149‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused were acquitted by the Court on the basis of affidavit sworn by the complainant himself in which he had stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused‑‑‑Complainant had clearly stated in his affidavit that he had compounded the offence and that he had no interest in pursuing the case‑‑‑Complainant himself appeared in the Court and verified the affidavit on the day when the accused were allowed bail‑‑‑Conduct of the appellant/complainant was deplorable a3,, on the one hand he swore an affidavit and appeared before the Court to verify the contents of the same and on the other hand he alleged to be a victim of coercion‑‑‑Appeal filed against the acquittal was dismissed with special costs, in circumstances. 1998 SCMR 466 ref. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Court has not to play in the hands of the unscrupulous litigants, but has to apply its independent mind and follow the law on the subject.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑‑‑Appellant‑complainant has tiled this appeal against the order, dated 13‑11‑2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I/Judge Special Court, Hafizabad whereby respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted of the charge under sections 324/337/148/149 and 109, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his appeal submits that respondents were named in the F.I.R., no notice was given to the appellant‑complainant when application either under section 249‑A or 265‑K, Cr.P.C. was moved and that the affidavit dated 13‑10‑1996 was procured by the respondents under coercion and in the affidavit filed later in 1999 it was stated that the affidavit dated 13‑10‑1996 was got signed under coercion.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at great length and have minutely gone through the impugned order. It is noteworthy that the appellant himself swore an affidavit stating therein that he had entered into a compromise with the respondents accused. He compounded the offence and stated that he had no interest in pursuing the case. He himself appeared in the Court and verified the affidavit, dated 13‑10‑1996 on the day when the respondents were allowed bail. When application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was submitted notice was given to the State in response of which the learned DDA wrote no objection in acquittal due to compromise. The order impugned was passed seeking guidance from a decision of the apex Court reported as 1998 SCMR
466. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality having been committed by the learned trial Court with the result that this appeal being merit-less is dismissed in limine. The conduct of the appellants in the instant case is deplorable. He on the one hand swore an affidavit and appeared before the Court to verify the contents of the same and on the other hand he alleged to be a victim of coercion. This is all afterthought and perhaps is based on greed. The Court has not to play in the hands of unscrupulous litigants but has to apply its independent mind and follow the law on the subject. In a way, the appellant has tried to dub this proceedings of the Court based on coercion. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000 to be paid within 10 days from today, in default the appellant shall be taken' into custody and will serve one month's R.I. H.B.T./M‑869/L Appeal dismissed.