2010 PLP 741 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 8 others — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 741 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 8 others — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 741 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 741 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 741 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 8 others — Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem for Petitioners.
- Imtiaz Ahmad Kaifi, Addl. Advocate-General for Respondents.
- 4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has vehemently opposed this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 399/402
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Making preparation and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity--Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Allegation against accused was that they were standing while armed with lethal weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity
Police or the Court had no touchstone to read the mind of an accused that he was to commit the offence
Intention of an accused for the commission of an offence could only be ascertained from the acts performed before the commission of the offence
As to how the complainant was able to read the minds of accused that they were to commit dacoity, was very surprising
Law did not make the person having such intention guilty of an offence, unless he would take some positive steps towards the commission of the crime, because there was a possibility of change of . mind at a subsequent stage
Impugned F.I.R., even if allowed to be proceeded, could not be expected to culminate into conviction of accused and the whole exercise would be a mere abuse of the process of law and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court
F.I.R. was quashed accordingly.?
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Through the present constitu?tional petition, Muhammad Anwar etc., petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. No.245 of 2009, dated 4-8-2009, registered under sections 399/ 402, P.P.C. at Police Station Ata Shaheed District Sargodha.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the aforesaid case was registered by the respondents against the petitioners with the allegations that they while being armed with different weapons were standing at Pull Chak No.112/Janubi for committing dacoity and on seeing the police raiding party they tried to flee away but they were overpowered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are law abiding respectable citizens of the country and the family of petitioners has a great respect in the vicinity but the local police on the instigation of adversaries of the petitioners' family who are unhappy over respect of family of the petitioners is bent upon to ruin prestige of petitioners and their entire family; that on 3-8-2009 at 8-00 p.m., when petitioner No.7 was present along with his other family members including other petitioners in his house respondent 'No.1 along with 15/16 police officials while armed with lethal weapons forcibly entered the house of petitioner No.7 after breaking the doors and started beating the inmates of the house. They also maltreated and humiliated the petitioners and while going they took along with them motorcar bearing Registration No.SGP-1313 XLI Toyota Corolla and 10/11 mobile phones and cash amount and also detained the petitioners in the Police Station. Facing the above situation, one Muhammad Yousaf a relative of the petitioners approached the learned Justice of Peace for the recovery of petitioners from the illegal and unjustified custody of respondents wherein a bailiff was deputed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and before reaching of the bailiff at the Police Station all the petitioners were involved in different criminal cases and that due to the aforesaid reasons the impugned F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners which is totally false and fabricated. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the challan in the impugned F.I.R. is submitted before the Court and the petitioners are tried no incriminating material would be available with the prosecution for conviction of the petitioners and in such circumstances continuation of the proceedings in the impugned F.I.R. would be a sheer abuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of the Court.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has vehemently opposed this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of the F.I.R. in which the only allegation against the petitioners is that they were standing while armed with lethal weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity. There is no touchstone with the police or the Court to read the mind of an accused that he was to commit the offence. The intention of an accused for the commission of an offence is only ascertainable from the acts which the accused perform before the commission of the offence. Here in this case it is the allegation against the petitioners that they were standing while armed with weapons. It is very surprising that how the complainant was able to read the minds of the petitioners that they were to commit dacoity. Law does not make the person having such intention guilty of an offence unless he takes some positive steps towards the commission of the crime because there is a possibility of change of mind at subsequent stage. Even if the impugned F.I.R. in such circumstances is allowed to be proceeded with there is hardly any chances of conviction of the petitioners and at the end it will be a mere abuse of process of law and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court.
6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any probability or chance of conviction of the petitioners. Accordingly, I accept this petition and quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 245/2009, dated 4-8-2009, registered under sections 399/402, P.P.C. at Police Station Ata Shaheed District Sargodha. N.H.Q./M-867/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? F.I.R. Quashed.