1995SCMR490 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR490 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR490 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR490 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR490 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Walayat Umar Choudhry, Advocate‑tin‑Record and Kan Muzafar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑It is submitted that Mst. Razia wife of the petitioner and her alleged paramour Muhammad Aslam alias Bola were murdered and in that connection F.I.R. is filed by Sher Muhammad, who is real uncle of deceased Muhammad Aslam. In that case 7 persons have been named as accused and after completion of investigation, challan is presented in the Court. Second F.I.R. No. 127/93 is filed by Muhammad Ismail, who is husband of deceased Mst. Razia for offence under sections 363 and 365, P.P.C. about kidnapping of children of deceased Mst. Razia and her husband and in that case 5 persons are named as accused persons. In that case arising from second F.I.R., investigation is not complete and challan is not presented in the Court but accused persons named in that F.I.R. filed application in the High Court for quashment under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., which is allowed.
2. Contention is raised before us that High Court was not competent to interfere as the matter was still at the stage of investigation and there were no proceedings pending in the Court which could have been quashed as contemplated under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. In support of the proposition, reliance is placed on the case of Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677). Leave is granted to examine whether impugned judgment of the High Court is in conformity with rule laid down by this Court in the reported case mentioned above. N.H.Q./M‑2095/S Leave granted.