Search Case Law Database
Found 18,783 judgments matching your criteria
2026 Y L R 20
Ghulam Muhammad — Appellant Versus Rashidan Bibi and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2025-October-3
Summary: — O.XVII, R.3 — Closing right of producing evidence — Fair trial — Scope — Petitioner /plaintiff assailed order of closing right of producing evidence — Validity — Record clearly indicated that after framing of the issues the petitioner's evidence co...
2026 Y L R 6
Sharifan Bibi and others — Petitioners Versus Muhammad Ismail (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2025-September-29
Summary: — S.115 — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 & First Sched., Art.162-A — Civil revision — Office objection — Civil revision filed before the High Court was within time but was re-submitted after removing office objection — Civil revision was re-submit...
2026 Y L R 1382
Parvaiz — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-73, Confirmation Case No. 12 and Criminal Appeal No. S-70 of 2022, decided on 26th November, 2025.
Summary: — Ss. 302(b), 324, 504, 148 & 149 — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, rioting armed with deadly weapons and unlawful assembly — Appreciation of evidence — Ocular account supported by ...
2026 Y L R 1367
Mst. Shehnaz Khatoon — Petitioner Versus Jam Ikramullah Khan Dharejo and 5 others — Respondents
Decided Date: Constitution Petition No. D-3900 of 2017, decided on 10th March, 2025.
Summary: — S.12 (2) — Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 — Ex parte award concerning a cooperative housing society plot — Subsequent purchaser dispossessed in execution proceedings — Subsequent purchaser challenging through S.12(2) C.P.C. — Matter concerning d...
2026 Y L R 1361
Mst. Humaira Qadeer — Applicant Versus Mohammad Abdul Ghaffar and another — Respondents
Decided Date: 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned ADJ VIII East without adopting the proper procedure under Section 176 Cr.P.C, passed the impugned order in violation of settled principle of law. Section 176 Cr.P.C. being in continuation of Section 174 Cr.P.C. empowered a Magistrate to exercise such power; that the learned trial court failed to consider that an inquiry would be futile, as the deceased died during hospitalization and no medical or lab report indicated any signs of toxicity; that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that Respondent No.1 remained silent for eight months after the death of his deceased brother; that he neither filed an application under Police Rules 1934, for exhumation of the body nor approached the concern SHO under section 174 or 176 Cr.P.C. Instead the applicant filed an complain against the criminal conduct of applicant directly and then approached the District and Sessions Judge for lodging of FIR and exhumation of deceased's body. That the impugned order passed was without any legal basis, has led to further harassment of the applicant and her family by Respondent No. 01, in collusion with police official; that the learned trial court failed to consider that Respondent No.1 filed the Criminal Misc. Application without any witness or documentary evidence and had nothing to link the applicant to the alleged allegations; that a detail inquiry was conducted by the concern Investigating Officer on the direction of the Court and the report, supported by documentary evidence established the mala fides of respondent No.1, which clearly showed that he failed to prove his version and attempted to misuse criminal proceedings against the applicant; that the impugned order was passed without substance and thereafter, respondent No.1 in collusion with police official, began harassing the applicant and her family members; that the learned Court fail to appreciate that respondent No.1 after an eight month delay following the death of the deceased, filed the criminal application solely to extort money from the applicant and her family; that no witness or any other documentary evidence was produced to connect the applicant to the alleged crime; that the learned Court also failed to appreciate that the allegation made by Respondent No. 01 during the police inquiry were unsupported by any evidence and his claim were based only on verbal statements, made to shield himself while demanding 'Bhata' from the applicant and attempting to usurp her assets. Furthermore, he did not challenge the hospital's medical report dated 10.09.2024, nor did the Court consider his background, including the fact that he is facing trial for the murder of his own wife; that the learned Court also failed to consider that Respondent No.1 did not explain the delay in reporting the matter; that after the impugned order, police officials repeatedly harassed the applicant and her family without lawful cause; that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated by Respondent No.1 solely to harass her, with no case established against her; that the Court further erred in treating technicalities as grounds to implicate an innocent person and hastily passed the impugned order without proper consideration; that the learned Court ordered an inquiry by the concerned officer, but no evidence was found on record connecting the applicant in any way and Respondent No.1 is misusing the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in 2024 SCMR 985, emphasized that courts must prevent such misuse and not mechanically entertain applications for directing police to register FIRs, investigate, and prosecute without proper grounds; that it is a settled principle that every case must be decided on its own facts and there is no evidence connecting the applicant to the allegations, which are baseless and fabricated by Respondent No.1; that the police are attempting to extort money from her without any lawful justification and Respondent No.1 has no legal claim to any property, and the Criminal Misc. Application is a tool to pursue his nefarious goals; that the affidavits from other family members exposing his suspicious activities were ignored by the learned Court; that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and fact, being without jurisdiction, unjust, and an abuse of power and no offence has been attributed to the applicant, who has suffered due to this order passed by Respondent No.1; that the order results from a misreading of the prosecution material, ignoring the absence of any mention of the alleged crime or explanation for the delay in reporting; that the learned Court also disregarded the applicant's counsel's arguments and case law, passing the order hastily and the order is therefore arbitrary, capricious, and liable to be set aside; that this is a case with no evidence and the impugned order contains numerous legal defects and erroneous conclusions by Respondent No.5, causing harassment to the applicant. She was left with no option but to file an application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to seek redressal before this Court; that the learned Court failed to consider the true facts and passed the order without proper evaluation, as the Respondent's sole motive is to extort money and threaten the applicant and her family. Counsel lastly prays for allowing the instant Criminal Misc. Application.
Summary: — Ss. 22-A & 561-A — Powers of Justice of Peace under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. — Scope — Petition filed under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, by the respondent for the lodgment of the FIR against the applicant was allowed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace — Validity — Rec...
2026 Y L R 1351
Abdul Hakeem and another — Appellants Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: Criminal Jail Appeals Nos. S-4, S-5 and S-06 of 2021, decided on 12th September, 2024.
Summary: — Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2) & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, rashness or negligence that endanger human life or personal safety, common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Contradictions in the statements of witnesses — Accused were charged for committing murder of ...
2026 Y L R 1329
Ismail Khan alias Razi Gul — Appellant Versus The STate — Respondent
Decided Date: Criminal Jail Appeal No. 781 of 2022, decided on 21st October, 2025.
Summary: — Ss. 302(b) & 34 — Qatl-i-amd, common intention — Appreciation of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Scope — Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and his friend by firing — Prosecution, in order to establish its ...
2026 Y L R 1308
Mst. Shagufta — Applicant Versus Abdul Hafeez and another — Respondents
Decided Date: Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 617 of 2025, decided on 29th August, 2025.
Summary: — S.491 — Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 128 — Birth during marriage conclusive proof of legitimacy — DNA test of minor daughter — Custody of minors — Petitioner was aggrieved of handing over the custody of her minor daughter to respondent where...
2026 Y L R 1270
Ahmed Ali alias Zohaib and another — Appellants Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: Criminal Appeals Nos. S-49 and S-51 of 2022, decided on 19th May, 2025.
Summary: — Ss. 395, 452, 337-L(2) & 506(2) — Dacoity, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, hurt, criminal intimidation — Appreciation of evidence — Infirmities in prosecution case — Accused were charged for entering into ...
2026 Y L R 1222
Muhammad Asif and 2 others — Appellants Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 162 of 2023, decided on 1st September, 2025.
Summary: — Ss. 302(b), 365-A & 34 — Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5 — Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 — Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a) — Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., com...
2026 Y L R 1167
Imam Ali Shah — Appellant Versus Inderyas Masih — Respondent
Decided Date: Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-206 of 2021, decided on 13th November, 2025.
Summary: — S. 489-F — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A) — Dishonestly issuing a cheque — Appreciation of evidence — Appeal against acquittal — Accused was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant, which was dishonoured when presente...
2026 Y L R 1144
Abdul Aziz and others — Applicants Versus Ali Muhammad Shah — Respondent
Decided Date: Civil Revision Application No. 201 of 2002, decided on 11th March, 2025.
Summary: — Ss.8, 42 & 54 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.31 — Suit for possession based on title — Competing title claims over evacuee property — Identity and existence of property — Courts below ordering demarcation of suit property — Scope — Br...
2026 Y L R 1115
Nusrat Hussain Kalhoro — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-September-23
Summary: — S. 9(c) — Possession of narcotic substances — Appreciation of evidence — State defence counsel — Not well equipped for cross-examination — Accused was charged for having in his possession 19-kilograms charas — Record transpired that all the prosecu...
2026 Y L R 1107
Abdul Hameed — Applicant Versus The State through Anti-Narcotics Force — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-October-10
Summary: — S. 9(c) — Possession of narcotic substance — Appreciation of evidence — Prosecution case was that 48-kilograms charas in 40 packets was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused — From the evidence on record, it transpired tha...
2026 Y L R 1100
Ubaidullah — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2024-November-16
Summary: — S. 397 — Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a) — Robbery, possession of unlicensed weapon — Appreciation of evidence — Accused was charged for snatching mobile phone from the complainant by threatening with a weapon — After perusing the evidence ...
2026 Y L R 1083
Khair Muhammad — Applicant Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-October-13
Summary: — S. 498 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149 — Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful...
2026 Y L R 1050
Adnan and another — Applicants Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-October-10
Summary: — S. 497(2) — Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act (VIII of 2024), S. 9(2)4 — Possession of narcotic substances — Bail, grant of — Further inquiry — Allegation against the accused-petitioners was that 250-grams methamphetamine (ICE) was recovered...
2026 Y L R 1023
Syed Najam Raza Naqvi — Applicant Versus Mst. Badar Jahan and 9 others — Respondents
Decided Date: 2026-February-21
Summary: — S.115 — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — Jurisdiction of High Court to revise a "case which has been decided" under S.115 (1), C.P.C. would arise only where an appeal does not lie thereto, and which would hence ordinarily exclude an ...
2026 Y L R 994
Faraz Ahmed — Petitioner Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-July-29
Summary: — S. 497 — Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act (VIII of 2024), S. 9(1), Sr. No. (3)(c) — Possession of narcotic substances — Bail, refusal of — Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that 04-kilograms charas was recovered from his possess...
2026 Y L R 973
Najeebullah — Applicant Versus The State — Respondent
Decided Date: 2025-October-1
Summary: — S. 497 — Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)], Ss. 6 & 9(1), Sr. No. (3)(e) — Possession and transportation of narcotic substances — Bail, dismissal of — Prosec...