2005 PLP 690 (YLR)
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 690 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 690 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 690 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 690 (YLR) (IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Babar Waheed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑S.497(S)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489‑F‑‑‑Cancellation of pre‑arrest bail‑‑ Accused admittedly had brought a suit for permanent injunction against the complainant wherein status quo order had been passed by the Civil Court‑‑‑Question of issuance of cheque or otherwise by the accused in favour of the complainant, thus, was sub judice before a competent Court which was yet to be decided‑‑‑Matter regarding guilt of accused required further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was a woman and nothing was to be recovered from her‑‑ Sessions Court had rightly exercised its discretion in favour of accused keeping in view the settled principles governing the grant or otherwise of such relief‑‑ Application for cancellation of bail granted to accused was dismissed in limine accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
2. Precisely the allegation against her is that she (respondent No.1) on 3‑2‑2003 had issued Cheque No.7836558 in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 in his (petitioner) favour while the same was dishonoured.
3. She moved an application for pre- arrest bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore. The same came up for hearing before the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide his abovementioned order has extended her such relief observing mainly that there seems mala fide of the petitioner (complainant) in the matter being in league with her husband as civil suit between her on one hand and the petitioner and her husband on the other is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court; and that she is a woman and so the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is also attracted to her case and that in case she is handed over to the police, she will suffer humiliation and loss to her reputation and chastity at the hands of the police.
4. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has come to this Court with this petition seeking withdrawal of the same.
5. It has been argued on his behalf that the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in extension of such relief to her are not correct as the offence under section 489‑F, P.P.C. is clearly made out against her, and that the question of recovery of amount from her is involved in the matter and such object has been frustrated by the grant of said relief to her.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone through copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
7. As indicated above that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while extending her such relief was influenced by the fact that there existed mala fide on the part of the petitioner being in league with her husband in the registration of the case against her that the civil suit between her on one hand the petitioner and her husband on the other regarding the same question of issuing of cheque is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court and that she is a woman and that there is likelihood of her suffering loss in reputation and humiliation in case she is refused the relief sought for by her.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the fact that she had brought suit for permanent injunction against the complainant and her husband and in the same status quo order has been issued by the Court concerned.
9. The above position clearly shows that the question of issuance of cheque or otherwise by her in favour of the petitioner is sub judice before competent Court. So, some decision is to be made therein by the Civil Court. Hence, her case required further inquiry into her guilt. The same, therefore, stood covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. She is a woman. On that count too she deserved the grant of relief prayed for by her. There had been involved no question of recovery from her.
11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in the matter keeping in view the settled principles governing the grant or otherwise of such relief. Thus, no case for cancellation of bail to her has been made out. The petition therefore, is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./I‑228/L Petition dismissed.