1992 PLP 1825 (MLD)
ZAHOOR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1825 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Allah Dino Memon, J |
| Parties | ZAHOOR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1825 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1825 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Allah Dino Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1825 (MLD) (ZAHOOR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent for recovery of her dower and dowry articles and to issue notice to petitioner on such application as the dispute between the parties if any, could be decided only by the Family Court‑-- Magistrate also appeared to have issued the said notice mala fide in order to harass the petitioner‑‑‑Proceedings including the issuance of notice by the Magistrate were quashed in circumstances. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin for the Petitioner. Shaukat H. Zubedi Addl. A: G. for the State. Mohammad Sadiq for the Respondent No.2 (called absent).
Judgment & Decree
ALLAH DINO MEMON, J.‑‑This is an application under Section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Site against the applicant. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that there was a dispute between the applicant and his wife Mst. Nasreen Bano which ultimately resulted in divorce. It appears from the record that Mst. Nasreen Bano sent an application to [he S.D.M. in which the following prayer was made: "Therefore, I pray in this Honourable Court that my dower amount be ordered to be given by him and my whole dowry articles be ordered to be returned to me." On receipts of application the learned S.D.M. was pleased to issue notice to the applicant to appear before him on 22‑7‑1990. The applicant has challenged the above order of S.D.M. issuing notice against him. It has been contended by Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the allegations made in the application clearly show that there was family dispute between the parties which could only be heard and decided by Family Court and the learned S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to entertain such application. It was further contended that the issuance of notice by S.D.M. was mala fide and the notice was issued only in order to harass the applicant for the reasons best known to the S.D.M. Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi learned A.A.‑G. appearing for the State has conceded that from the contents of the application it is clear that the dispute between the parties if any is to be decided by Family Court and the learned S.D.M. had no jurisdiction in the matter. I have considered the contentions. The prayer made in the application clearly shows that the learned S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to entertain this application and consequently the issuance of notice against the applicant was illegal and without jurisdiction. It further appears from the circumstances, that the grievance made by Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin that the application was mala ' fide and the learned S.D.M. had issued notice mala fide in order to harass the applicant is borne out from the facts mentioned in the application. In view of the above circumstances, the application is allowed and the proceedings including notice issued by the S.D.M. are quashed. The learned S.D.M. is warned to be careful in future and not to drag people in the Court unnecessarily in future. Let copy of this order be sent to the learned D.M. Karachi (West) for information. N.H.Q./Z‑180/K. Proceedings quashed.