P L D 1992 Lahore 215 (PLP)
Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR A14MAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1992 Lahore 215 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑ Art. 3 as amended by High Courts (Establishment) Order (Punjab (Amendment) Ordinance, Q of 1981) ‑‑‑ Petitioner sought permission to file, at the principal Seat of Lahore High Court, a petition under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in a criminal complaint instituted by complainant against him in the Court of a Magistrate at Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran‑‑ No exceptional circumstances existed for which the Multan Bench should not have been permitted to hear the petition intended to be riled by the petitioner ‑‑‑ All parties are equal before law as laid down in Art.25 of the Constitution ‑‑‑ Complaint filed by the complainant against petitioner at that stage could not be said to be devoid of substance and he could not, therefore, be forced to come to Lahore to defend the proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner because at the moment nothing could be said about success or failure of those proceedings also‑‑‑Petitioner was not allowed to file his petition at Lahore in circumstances. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, Actg C J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR A14MAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Lahore 215 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Lahore 215 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑ Art. 3 as amended by High Courts (Establishment) Order (Punjab (Amendment) Ordinance, Q of 1981) ‑‑‑ Petitioner sought permission to file, at the principal Seat of Lahore High Court, a petition under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in a criminal complaint instituted by complainant against him in the Court of a Magistrate at Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran‑‑ No exceptional circumstances existed for which the Multan Bench should not have been permitted to hear the petition intended to be riled by the petitioner ‑‑‑ All parties are equal before law as laid down in Art.25 of the Constitution ‑‑‑ Complaint filed by the complainant against petitioner at that stage could not be said to be devoid of substance and he could not, therefore, be forced to come to Lahore to defend the proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner because at the moment nothing could be said about success or failure of those proceedings also‑‑‑Petitioner was not allowed to file his petition at Lahore in circumstances. bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, Actg C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Lahore 215 (PLP) (Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR A14MAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Mehar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ R. 3 ‑‑‑ Benches have been set up with a view to taking justice to the doorsteps of the people ‑‑‑ All cases relating to a particular area, therefore, should be heard by the Bench meant for that area ‑‑‑ Cases are transferred from one Bench to another or from a Bench to the principal Seat or vice versa in very exceptional circumstances. (b) High Courts (Establishment) Order (8 of 1970)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Art. 3 [as amended by High Courts (Establishment) Order (Punjab (Amendment) Ordinance, Q of 1981)] ‑‑‑ Petitioner sought permission to file, at the principal Seat of Lahore High Court, a petition under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in a criminal complaint instituted by complainant against him in the Court of a Magistrate at Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran‑‑ No exceptional circumstances existed for which the Multan Bench should not have been permitted to hear the petition intended to be riled by the petitioner ‑‑‑ All parties are equal before law as laid down in Art.25 of the Constitution ‑‑‑ Complaint filed by the complainant against petitioner at that stage could not be said to be devoid of substance and he could not, therefore, be forced to come to Lahore to defend the proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner because at the moment nothing could be said about success or failure of those proceedings also‑‑‑Petitioner was not allowed to file his petition at Lahore in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition by one Ch. Muhammad Siddique for permission to file, at the Principal Seat of this Court, a petition under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashment of proceedings in a criminal complaint instituted by one Sher Muhammad, against him, in the C;ourt of Mr. ZuIfiqar Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Clase, Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran.
2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he had litigation with the said Magistrate and his brothers and, therefore, the said Magistrate manoeuvred the filing of fictitious complaint by the said Sher Muhammad in his own Court with a view to disturbing his (petitioner's) business and "putting him to unnecessary travelling expenses and physical discomfort"‑
3. At this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint filed against the petitioner is false and frivolous. If the petitioner is allowed to take out quashment proceedings at Lahore, the complainant will have to come here to defend the petition made in this behalf. Obviously, in that case the complainant will have to face hardship besides suffering financial burden. So the argument which is being advanced by the petitioner for seeking permission to file quashment petition at Lahore would be equally available to the complainant. It is not just and proper to accommodate one party at the cost of other. Benches have been set up with a view to taking justice to the doorsteps of the people. Therefore, all cases relating to an area should be heard by the Bench meant for that area. This is what has been enshrined in rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981. It is in very exceptional circumstances that cases are transferred from one Bench to another or from a Bench to the, Principal Seat or vice versa. There are no exceptional circumstances for which the Multan Bench should not be permitted to hear the petition intended to be filed by the petitioner. All parties are equal before law and this principle has. been laid down in Article 25 of the Constitution. As stated above, at this stage, there is nothing to convince me that the complaint filed by Sher Muhammad is devoid of substance. He cannot, therefore, be forced to come to Lahore to defend the quashment proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner because, at the moment, nothing can be said about success or failure of those proceedings also. In the circumstances, right now, I am not in favour of giving an edge to the petitioner over the complainant.
4. In view of the above discussion, I do not allow the petitioner to file his quashment petition at Lahore This criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed accordingly, in limine. N..H.Q./M‑277/L Petition dismissed.