1979 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SAJJAN AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THS STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1979 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, J |
| Parties | Mst. SAJJAN AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THS STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 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 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SAJJAN AND 3 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THS STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Hyder A. Memon for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 23rd August, 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-proceedings under S. 494, P. P. C. sought to be quashed on ground of delay-Delay, however, occasioned by conduct of petitioners themselves and case ripe for judgment when proceedings for quashment instituted Complaint also revealing a prima facie case against petitioners further examination of facts and evidence not required- Quash ment of proceedings declined, in circumstances.-[Delay]. Agha Ghulam Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Agha Ghulam Ali for the State. Ghulam Hyder A. Memon for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 23rd August, 1978. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of a direct complaint case for offence under section 494, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Tando Muhammad Khan.
2. The allegations in this complaint are to the effect that comp lainant/respondent Makhan had married Mst. Sajjan, the petitioner 15 years prior to the filing of the case. They had one daughter and 2 sons out of the wedlock. Mst. Sajjan left the house of her husband and married petitioner/accused Muhammad Bux in presence of the remaining 2 accused Muhammad Ali and Tayyab.
3. The main ground for quashment urged by Muhammad Ali Shaikh is that of delay. The complaint was filed as far back as 10th August, 1971. The case remained pending for about 7 years. Accord ing to Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh this delay by itself amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.
4. It has on the other had been pointed out by Mr. Ghulam Hyder Memon that for the delay if any the accused/petitioners themselves are to be blamed. That for the first three years the complainant's examina tion could not be undertaken because the accused applied for time to engage counsel. Ultimately by 5th September, 1975, the prosecution side was closed. Even thereafter adjournment applications were received from the side of the accused. Applications were filed for transfer of the case and also for recall of the witnesses for cross examination under section 540, Cr. P. C. The accused changed their advocate and asked for further time to engage a new counsel. Ulti mately under section 540, Cr. P. C. was also concluded. The case was then ripe for judgment when the present proceedings for quashment were instituted. Mr. Ghulam Hyder Memon has substantiated his stand by referring to the entries in the case diary.
5. It would thus appear that the complaint reveals a prima facie case and quashment cannot be considered by further examination of the facts and evidence. Regarding delay there are indications that the delay was occasioned by the conduct of the accused themselves. In any case, the matter is ripe for judgment and it would not be expedient to consider the question of quashment of the proceedings at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court may, however, complete the proceedings within the next 3 months. Petition dismissed,