1977 P Cr (PLP)
KHANI ZAMAN-petitioner Versus SHIER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHANI ZAMAN-petitioner Versus SHIER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (KHANI ZAMAN-petitioner Versus SHIER ZAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ghani for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ali Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Petitioner being prosecuted under S. 420/406, P. P. C. for having agreed to give hand of his grand-daughter to respondent's son, receiving ornaments bait eventual ly backed out and married girl with some other person-Nothing to show that at time petitioner made promise he had no intention to marry girl-Criminal prosecution, held; an abuse of process of Court and quashed, in circumstances.--[Quashment of proceedings].
Judgment & Decree
The facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner, agreed to give the hand of his grand-daughter, Bibi Jamila Jan to the son of the respondent 7 years back and received ornaments worth Re. 9,
965. It is alleged that thereafter he has been putting off the respondent on one pretext or the other and did not marry the girl with the son of the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner married the girl with some other person and after one month the respondent brought a complaint under sections 420 and 416, P. P. C. against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after making preliminary inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. summoned the petitioner and he has come forward for getting the proceedings quashed. The evidence does not show that at the time when the petitioner promised to give the hand of his grand-daughter to the son of the respondent this intention was bad and he did not want to marry the girl. The simple fact that at tire time of agreeing to give the hand of the girl in marriage ornaments were received would not be sufficient to show that the intention was not to give the girl in marriage.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that a case under section 406 nary be made out against the petitioner, therefore, this is not a case for quashment. I do not find any force in this argument. No doubt the complaint was brought under sections 420 and 406, P. P. C. but the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner only under section 420 and not under. Section
406. Since the parties are related, the main purpose of the bringing of the complaint by the respondent was to recover the ornaments and the intention does not appear to get the petitioner punished. The ornaments can be recovered by bringing a civil suit. The bringing of the complaint therefore amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. For A the reasons given above I accept this petition arid quashing the proceedings of the complaint direct that the complaint be filed and the petitioner b9 4iaeharged. No order as to costs. Proceedings quashed.