1993 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AYUB QURESHI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB QURESHI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AYUB QURESHI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. The learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that from the facts of the case, no offence is made out under Article 337-U of the Q & D Ordinance as there is no allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. and continuance of proceedings. in these. circumstances, would be abuse of process of Court.
- 3. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the applicant stated that an application under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. was moved by him before the trial Court of A.C.M.-3 (South) Karachi, of which notice was also given to the State counsel, but since the Court is lying vacant no orders could be passed on such application.
- 4. The learned Advocate appearing or the complainant as well as for the State suggested that as the trial Court is lying vacant, a direction may be given to the learned Sessions Judge of the area to recall the said case and transfer it to any other Magistrate competent to try the case, where application moved by the applicant for acquittal can be considered. Further that if the applicant is dissatisfied by any order passed on his application, he can approach this Court and invoke the provisions of section 561-A of Cr.P.C. This proposal is accepted by Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned Advocate for the applicant, who states that if such a d1rection is given he would not press this quashment application.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A & 249-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S337-U
High Court, during the course of arguments, was apprised that an accused before the Magistrate could not be decided as the Court of Magistrate was lying vacant
Sessions Judge, in the circumstances and with the consent of the parties was directed to entrust the case to any other competent Magistrate for its disposal.
Judgment & Decree
The applicant seeks quashment of proceedings under Article 337-U of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, which are outcome of F.I.R. No.209 of 1991 of Police Station Risala, Karachi, lodged by complainant Muhammad Sabir Qureshi. The case is pending in the Court of A.C.M. III (South) Karachi.
2. The learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that from the facts of the case, no offence is made out under Article 337-U of the Q & D Ordinance as there is no allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R. and continuance of proceedings. in these. circumstances, would be abuse of process of Court.
3. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the applicant stated that an application under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. was moved by him before the trial Court of A.C.M.-3 (South) Karachi, of which notice was also given to the State counsel, but since the Court is lying vacant no orders could be passed on such application.
4. The learned Advocate appearing or the complainant as well as for the State suggested that as the trial Court is lying vacant, a direction may be given to the learned Sessions Judge of the area to recall the said case and transfer it to any other Magistrate competent to try the case, where application moved by the applicant for acquittal can be considered. Further that if the applicant is dissatisfied by any order passed on his application, he can approach this Court and invoke the provisions of section 561-A of Cr.P.C. This proposal is accepted by Mr. S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned Advocate for the applicant, who states that if such a d1rection is given he would not press this quashment application.
5. Accordingly, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.522 of 1992 is I dismissed as not pressed. The learned Sessions Judge Karachi (South) is directed to recall the case against the applicant and co-accused pending in the E Court of A.C.M.-3 (South), being outcome of F.I.R. No.209/91 of Police Station Risala, and assign it to any other Magistrate competent to hear and decide the said case. With above direction, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of. N u 0. /M-1725 /K Order accordingly