P L D 2009 Peshawar 24 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2009 Peshawar 24 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Peshawar 24 (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 P L D 2009 Peshawar 24 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Peshawar 24 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Asadullah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A & 265-K
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-A
Inherent powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Scope
Quashment of F.I.R.
Lady who had been introduced as alleged abductee, was neither in possession M her identity card nor there was any reliable person to identify her in court for the purpose of disposal of the petition
Inherent powers of the High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., were not supposed to be exercised to override the express provisions of law
Ordinary course of law should not be allowed to be deflected, nor High Court was required to stifle the prosecution case at the very initial stage of the proceedings
On completion of investigation, the case could be put in court where it would be open for the parties to apply for consideration of the case within the meaning of S.265-K, Cr.P.C.; and in case the charge was found groundless, then naturally the Trial Court would be competent to exercise its powers lawfully and judiciously.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN, J.
By this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. -No.50 dated 12-1-2008 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Havelian, District Abbottabad, merely on the ground that the parties being grown up have contracted marriage with their free consent and that they have been booked falsely by the uncle of petitioner, Mst. Gulshad daughter of Muhammad Siddique; that she being sui-juris had contracted marriage with her free consent according to Sharia Muhammadi and they are living together as husband and wife since registration of their nikah that after the marriage they settled in Dera Ghazi Khan due to fear of her family members who were unhappy on their love marriage; that after the nikah continuation of criminal proceedings against them would not advance the cause of justice particularly when they have contracted marriage with their free consent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State counsel and also gone through the record of the case.
3. I wanted to dispose of the petition on merits and in this connection examined the lady, who has been introduced as Mst. Gulshad Bibi, the alleged abductee of the instant case. She is neither in possession of her identity card nor there is any reliable person to identify her in Court for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Besides, the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are not supposed to be exercised to override the expressed provisions of law, on the subject 1999 MLD pages 465, 535, PLD 1967 SC 317 and PLD 1997 SC 275 can be conveniently referred and relied upon. The theme of these authorities is that ordinary course of law should not be allowed to be defeated nor this Court is required to stifle the prosecution case at the very initial stage of the proceedings. Let on completion of investigation the case may be put in Court and there it will be open for the parties to apply for consideration of the case within the meaning of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and in case the charge is found groundless then naturally the trial Court will be competent to exercise its powers lawfully and judiciously.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being meritless stands dismissed. H.B.T.1195/P Petition dismisse