Some Important case laws on various propositions.

Some Important case laws on various propositions.

INTERIM RELIEF

2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576

Bail in Juvenil Justice

2005 YLR 3196
2006 PCRLJ 542
2002 PCRLJ 657
2002 MLD 1817
2003 YLR 1792
2002 YLR 1045
2005 MLD 1247
2006 MLD 507
2004 MLD 1747
2005 MLD 1468
2005 YLR 838
2002 YLR 176
PLD 2004 PESHAWER 70
2005 PCRLJ 1500
2003 YLR 3204
2004 MLD 630
2006 PCRLJ 1788
2004 PCRLJ 426

22-A

2006 CLC 119
2005 YLR 1408
2005 YLR 3127
2006 MLD 1184
2005 PCRLJ 684
2005 PSC 34
PLD 2005 KAR 285
2006 YLR 1904

CANCELLATION OF BAIL

2006 YLR 1433
2006 YLR 1678
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 1087
2006 PCRLJ 18
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 292
2006 PCRLJ 1144
2006 PCRLJ 1009
2006 PCRLJ 249
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 405,423,986
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)955
PLJ 2006 SC 247
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)469,176,883
PLJ 2005 CRC (LAH) 65,268,120
2006 SCMR 93

SECTION 154 CRPC

PLJ 2006 CR.C (LAH) 190(DB)
2005 YLR 1329
2006 PCRLJ 1277
2004 PCRLJ 391
2004 PCRLJ 976
2004 SCMR 868
2005 SCMR 154
PLJ 2005 SC 24
PLJ 2006 LAH 507

INTERIM RELIEF

2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576

249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings

PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068

Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act

PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751

249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings

PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068

Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act

PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751

Pre- Emption

1988 SCMR 892
1996 CLC 161
2001 SCMR 495
1991 MLD 506
2008 PLD MARCH/APRIL
Mian peer v/s Fakir mohammad
PLD 2007 SC 121
1991 SCMR 112

Accused not named in F.I.R

2006 YLR 1664
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 423
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 612
2006 PCRLJ 418
2006 YLR 418
2006 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 1872

Check dishounor / 489-F

PLJ 2004 545

PLD 99 KARACHI 121

PCRLJ 2004 343

PLD 95 SC 34

2004 PLJ LAHORE 522

Plea of Alibi

2005 MLD 1756
2005 MLD 1267
2005 MLD 415
2006 YLR 749
2006 PCRLJ 184
2004SCMR 1019
2005 PCRLJ 1269

Identification Parade

2006 MLD 14
2005 YLR 657
2006 MLD 431
2005 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 673
2005YLR 3151
Identification Parade not Held

Benefit of doubt

PLJ2005 Cr.C Lah 47
2006 MLD 614
2006 MLD 595
PLJ 2005 Cr.C.Pesh 999
2006 PDr.LJ 1033
2005 YLR 3141
Benefit of doubt

Custody of minor

CUSTODY OF MINOR

1. 2003MLD 977
2. 2003 CLC 1492
3. 2003 CLC1265 LAH
4. 1994 MLD 1199
5. 1983 SCMR 480
6. 1981 NLR 741
7. 1983 SCMR 481
8. 1996 CLC KAR
9. 2003 MLD 980

Bail in rape cases

PCRLJ 2006 CR.C LAHORE 433
PLJ 2006 CR,C LAH 101
PLJ 2006 CR.C LAH 106
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 813
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 542
2003 YLR 1757
PLJ 2003 CR.C LAH 640

Bail in Rape cases under hadood ordinance Sec 10/11

1984 PCRLJ 365
NLR 1993 56
86 PCRLJ 1587
PLD 84 SC 23
PLD 59 LAH 677
1990 ALD 92 (1)
1990 ALD 435 (2)

Delay in FIR in that cases

1990 ALD 546
NLR 1993 PESH 480

Decoy witness

1994 PCRLJ 292
1989 PCRLJ 1324/1334

Excused of accused in court

1980 PCRLJ 1---3
PLD 1988 KAR 535
1989 PCRLJ 1652
PLD 1993 373

Bail
Bail means to hand over an accused into the hands of surety from the custody of state.

Definition of bail after arrest U/S 497 Cr.P.C
PLJ 2006 SC (AJ & K ) 65.

Principles of bail after arrest.
1. Prima facie case 1991 MLD 1435
2. Appreciation of evidence 2004 PCr.LJ127
3. Benefit of doubt 199 PCr.Lj 582
4. Recovery 1998 MLD 1366
5. Delay in trial PLD 2005 Karachi 201

Distinction between bail after arrest and bail before arrest

2005 PCr.Lj 546 2005 YLR 3133

Grounds of Bail after Arrest

(i) Further Inquiry U/S 497
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 885 (Grant)
2005 YLR 2532(Grant)
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 97 (Grant)
2005 MLD 1072 (Grant)

(ii) Delay in Lodging FIR

PLJ 2006 Cr.C(Lah)117 (Grant)
2006 YLR 1863
2006 YLR 1563
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCr.LJ 1087
2006 YLR 712

Stay order 39 rule 1-2

1989 SCMR 130
1992 SCMR 138
1988 PLD S.C 1509
2000 SCMR 780
AIR 37 LAH 288
2003 CLC 16595

Grounds of bail before

2006 YLR 1305
2006 MLD 559
2006 MLD 1046
2006 PCRLJ 234
PLJ CRC(LAH)173
2006 MLD 491

Neccessary party

1906 MLD 195
1986 MLD 18
1957 LAH 882
1970 SCMR 839
1987 LAH 336/307

Ejectment of tenent for personal use

1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337

1987 MLD 715
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
1988 MLD 1974

NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 523
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706

PLJ 2003 SC 65

PLD 1987 KARACHI 180

1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759

Judgements for maintainance of children to the father

PLD 1881 LAHORE 280
PLD 1986 LAHORE 272
PLD 1958(W.P)LAHORE 596
1985 MLD 96
NLR 1991 CLJ 430
1987 CLC 247

Judgements on ejectment of tenent for personel use

1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337

NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 23
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706

1987 MLD 715

1988 MLD 1974

1987 MLD 2367

1987 MLD 1078

PLD 1987 KARACHI 180

PLJ 2003 SC 65

1991 CLC 1381

1991 SCMR 1759
(Copied)

case law on benefit of doubt

Ss. 6 & 9(c)---Prohibition of possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had examined only two Police Officials---Car claimed to have been used for transportation of the narcotics was owned by one, who had not been examined---No explanation was offered for non producing and non-examination of said owner of car--Discrepancies were found with regard to the chassis number; of the car alleged to have been used in the crime---Impugned judgment, in circumstances, was not sustainable in law--Burden was upon the prosecution to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt; and law presume d an accused innocent till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt---material contradictions existed in the deposition of the two prosecution witness es---Evidence of both the prosecution witness es on the seizure of narcotics/samples secured from the spot had material contradictions, which were sufficient to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Impugned order passed by Special Court, was set aside, in circumstances.

2011 YLR 1483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : KHAN MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State

2002 CLC 96 KARAchi. Facts speaks itself,Doctor left towal inside the abdomin during opration which brought out another doctor so suit for damages decreed against first doctor.

2002 CLC 96 Karachi.
Facts speaks itself,Doctor left towal inside the abdomin during opration which brought out another doctor so suit for damages decreed against first doctor.

PLD 1995 KAR 555. Newspaper's news related to chachater of someone is not admissible in evidence.

PLD 1995 KAR 555.
Newspaper's news related to chachater of someone is not admissible in evidence.

Bail granted authority in 386 ppc & 7 ATA

Bail granted authority in 386 ppc & 7 ATA ( Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.386 /34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation of the complainant was that he received calls from two mobile phones from the accused who demanded amount and in failing to make such payment threats of dire consequences were extended---Complainant in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. had come forth verbatim as in his complaint and added that he gave tainted currency notes to his servant---Mention of said part of the statement was missing in F.I.R.---Amount in question though was pre-arranged, but numericals of the currency notes were not noted that could enable the complainant or the Police to connect accused with the same in the event of the recovery; however recovery was stated to have been made from accused---Statement by the servant of the complainant had shown that the complainant was receiving calls from accused on regular basis---Such state of affairs was neither patent from the contents of the F.I.R. nor from the statement of the complainant---Record showed that two numbers from which the complainant had received calls belonged to accused, but it was not yet clear that such two numbers were part of those five sims allegedly recovered from accused---Inconsistencies were found as to the number of sims recovered---Recovery of sims by itself created doubts, which needed further inquiry and same was the position with the recovery of currency notes---Case of accused requiring further inquiry, he was enlarged on bail, in circumstances.

2012 PCrLJ 70 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YASEEN alias BABA LADLA alias BABA
Side Opponent : State

Offence under S.377, P.P.C. though was not compoundable,

Offence under S.377, P.P.C. though was not compoundable, but the compromise effected between the parties could be considered a ground for reduction of sentence(Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

-S. 377---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Compromise---Accused, who was awarded 7 years' R.I., had already served out more than half of the sentence awarded to him---F.I.R. was lodged after about 7 days from conducting of medical examination of accused and such inordinate delay remained unexplained---Offence under S.377, P.P.C. though was not compoundable, but the compromise effected between the parties could be considered a ground for reduction of sentence---Ends of justice would be sufficiently met, if sentence of accused was reduced from 7 years' R.I. to one already undergone by him---Amount of fine was also reduced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.10,000, in circumstances.

Kashif Nadeem alias Pappi v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1799 rel.

2013 Y L R 1109
[Federal Shariat Court]
Before Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J

MUMTAZ ALI---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent

Application for disinterment of dead body was allowed

Application for disinterment of dead body was allowed (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

----Ss. 174 & 176---Application for disinterment of dead body---Scope of Ss.174 & 176, Cr.P.C.--- Petitioner/sister of the deceased, submitted application, seeking disinterment of dead body of her deceased brother, on the ground that; her brother did not die natural death, but was murdered by giving poison; and after strangulation by respondents on the instigation of other respondents---Said application was dismissed by the courts below---Validity---Question of exhumation, had to be decided only keeping in view the circumstances relevant to cl.(1) or (b), or (c) of subsection (1) of S.174, Cr.P.C.; there should either be an indication that the information related to the commission of suicide or regarding the killing of a person by another person; or by an animal; or by machinery; or by an accident---Other aspect relevant for disinterment, was the existence of the circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion; that some other persons, had committed an offence in relation to the death of the deceased, required to be disinterred---Petitioner, being the real sister of the deceased, had all the genuine cause to dispel the suspicion of unnatural death of her deceased brother---Scope and intent of S.176, Cr.P.C., was to discover the actual cause of death of the deceased---Subsection (1) of S.176, Cr.P.C., made provision for conducting an inquiry into the cause of death, either instead of or in addition to the investigation held by the Police, if the case was covered by S.174, Cr.P.C.---Even the registration of the FIR, was not an impediment for holding an inquiry into the case of death of deceased under S.176, Cr.P.C.---In the wake of a specific allegation and apprehension of unnatural death of the deceased, the requirements of Ss.174 & 176, Cr.P.C., could not be ignored---Sister of the deceased had a right to know the actual cause of death of her deceased brother, so that her apprehension was laid to rest once and for all---Exhumation of dead body, could be ordered on the request of, or on the information, even a stranger for the purpose to know the actual cause of death, so that criminal machinery, be set in motion---Petitioner, was justified in asking for exhumation of the dead body of the deceased to know the cause of death---Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction being an equitable relief, High Court could validly look into the matter for the ends of justice---High Court setting aside concurrent orders of the courts below, directed Judicial Magistrate to manage for the disinterment of the body of the deceased for the purpose of ascertainment of cause of death.

P L D 2016 Lahore 518
Before Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem, J

Mst. FOZIA SHABNAM---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN and 8 others---Respondents

Latest bail authority on 23(1) SAA.

Latest bail authority on 23(1) SAA. (Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 199 7), Ss. 6 & 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23A---Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention, possessing of arm and act of terrorism---Bail after arrest, grant of---Contention of complainant was that accused was arrested on the spot with an unlicensed pistol and was nominated with specific role of making firing upon police, as such he was not entitled to be released on bail---Accused plea was that no independent person was cited as mashir or witness and he was a poor fisherman and that police used to demand fish from him without paying money and on his refusal he had been falsely implicated---Validity---Bail of accused could not be withheld as punishment being offence falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---High Court observed that accused was arrested after firing on police but it was very astonishing that exchange of firing between accused and police lasted for considerable time in which only accused had sustained injuries and neither police nor their official vehicle was hit and even a single scratch was not caused to motorcycle allegedly recovered from the accused---Ballistic examination report of pistol recovered from accused and empty shells of same, were shown to have been collected from place of incident were also not available in police file and such facts created the prosecution case apparently doubtful---Case registered under S. 23A(i) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 against the accused was an off shoot of main case---Very presence of accused with alleged weapon was a matter of further inquiry---Accused was granted post-arrest bail, accordingly.

2016 PCrLJN 54 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : JAVED
Side Opponent : State

Latest bail authority 506/2

Latest bail authority 506/2 (Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

---Ss.498 & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(iv), 147, 148, 149 & 504---Criminal intimidation; shajjah-i-khafifah; ghayr-jaifah/munaqqilah; rioting, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace; common object---Bail before arrest, grant of---Principles---Rule of consistency--- Applicability--- Co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail by the trial Court---Case of present accused persons was on better footing than that of the co-accused, and the only difference was that the co-accused had been arrested and granted post-arrest bail, while the present accused were seeking pre-arrest bail---No useful purpose would be served if the pre-arrest bail was refused to the accused persons on any technical ground, as they, after arrest, would again be allowed bail on ground that the co-accused in similar circumstances had already been granted bail---Bail application was allowed accordingly.
Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafrullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380 rel.

2016 Y L R 2507
[Sindh (Sukkur Bench)]
Before Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, J

ZAMIR AHMED and 2 others---Applicants
Versus
The STATE---Respondent

2016 PCr.LJ 1916 (Cyber Crime)

2016 PCr.LJ 1916 (Cyber Crime)
Hacking facebook ID of the complainant and misusing the same for uploading her personal pictures on internet without her permission and disgracing her in the eye of general public, is an offence of heinous nature which ruins the life of the victim. Accused not entitled to grant of bail after arrest.

Suit for recovery of dowery articles against hasband father and brother is maintenable

Suit for recovery of dowery articles against hasband father and brother is maintenable (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

S. 2(d). & Sched. Item No.8 (dowery )---"Party"---Suit for recovery of dowery articles-Contention that wife was competent to file such suit only against her husband and not against the father, mother and brother of her husband,, was baseless---Provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and its Schedule in item No.8 contains "dowery .

2011 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARIF
Side Opponent : DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT

Magistrate was not merely a post office to send up all accused persons nominated by the Police for trial, and let off those placed in column No.2 of the challan-

Magistrate was not merely a post office to send up all accused persons nominated by the Police for trial, and let off those placed in column No.2 of the challan---Magistrate, had to apply his conscious mind and thereafter make up his mind to agree or disagree with the Police report---Magistrate would take cognizance of the offence and not the particular person named in the challan (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

2014 YLR 660 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL MALIK
Side Opponent : State

If Wife had voluntarily left the house of her husband and she was not entitled to maintenance

If Wife had voluntarily left the house of her husband and she was not entitled to maintenance (Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

--S. 5, Sched---Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance charges and dower---Cruelty---Scope---Cruel attitude was not confined only to the extent of physical violence but it would include mental torture, hateful attitude of husband or other inmates of the house and also included the circumstances in presence of which wife was forced to abandon the house of her husband---Wife had failed to prove cruelty in the present case---Family Court had correctly passed decree on the ground of 'khula'---Husband was bound to pay maintenance charges to the wife till she was faithful to him and lived with him and if she had voluntarily left the house of her husband then she was not entitled to maintenance charges---Wife had voluntarily left the house of her husband and she was not entitled to maintenance charges---Dower once paid could not be demanded for second time---Appeal filed by the wife was partly accepted to the extent of maintenance charges---Decree of maintenance charges passed by the Shariat Court was set aside.
2016 YLR 371
AZHARBASHIR---Appellant
Versus
SADIASHAFIQUE---Respondent

Ultimate decision as to whether person was guilty or not, rested with the court of law and not with the police

Ultimate decision as to whether person was guilty or not, rested with the court of law and not with the police (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

Ss.169, 170 & 173 ---Investigation of case---Crux of Ss.169, 170 & 173 , Cr.P.C., was that the Investigating Officer had to submit the final report with regard to the result of his investigation for taking cognizance, or passing order under S.173 , Cr.P.C.---Police, could not adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the offender, because it was not their duty to decide as to which party was wrong or right---Investigation was required to be completed without unnecessary delay or impediment and as soon as, it was complete, the challan was required to be submitted not late r than 14 days---Ultimate decision as to whether person was guilty or not, rested with the court of law and not with the police.

2016 YLR 37 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ZEESHAN MUSTAFA LASHARI
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH

Unnecessary adjournments creating hurdles in judicial system may shake confidence of concerned witnesses, which should be avoided at all costs

Unnecessary adjournments creating hurdles in judicial system may shake confidence of concerned witnesses, which should be avoided at all costs.(Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

---S. 344---Frequent adjournment---Effect---Frequent adjournments mostly sought on flimsy grounds contribute to hardship, inconvenience and expenses to parties and witnesses---Witnesses come to assist Court to dispense justice, who sacrifice their time feel inconvenience rather frustration and unhappiness if their cases adjourn, as they are required to come to Courts repeatedly, which amount to provide opportunities to opposite parties to threaten them not to depose truth---Unnecessary adjournments creating hurdles in judicial system may shake confidence of concerned witnesses, which should be avoided at all costs.

2015 P Cr. L J 535
[Sindh]
Before Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, J

M. IQBAL---Applicant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent

Wife is not competent to file complaint against her husband for polygamy

Wife is not competent to file complaint against her husband for polygamy (Mujjan Ali Panhwar)

----S.6---West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Polygamy---Quashing of proceedings, application for---Respondent/ complainant wife in her complaint had alleged that applicant/husband had contracted second marriage without her prior permission and consent---Wife had also alleged that husband had not even filed any application to the Nazim Union Council for obtaining permission of Arbitration Council---Complaint was returned by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, with the direction to file same before the Union Council concerned---Appellate Court however, set aside order of the Trial Court and remanded the' complaint with the directions to record the statement of wife---Husband who filed application for quashing of the proceedings had contended that provisions of S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 did not contemplate an action on behalf of private person, which could only be initiated on behalf of the Union Council---Validity---As to what had been provided under the law, had to be followed in the same manner and an aggrieved party could avail normal. remedies by approaching the Trial Court---Notwithstanding, it was not the intention of lawmakers that an aggrieved party under S.6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 should approach the court of law for redress, except that Union Council would have the jurisdiction over the subject in the event of Polygamy as said section did not contemplate delegation of authority to the private person for initiating an action on behalf of the Union Council---In the present case, proceedings initiated by the Trial Court in the complaint of wife, were found to be devoid of lawful authority, it would be an exercise in futile to allow the private complaint to linger on which would tantamount to be patent illegality and flagrant abuse of process of law---Bar existed in entertaining a private complaint directly filed by the wife against the husband, which would amount to violation of the principles of justice, and required interference for exercise of power of quashing the proceedings--Impugned order was set aside and proceedings pending before the Trial Court were directed to be quashed.

Subadar Malik Sher Muhammad v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ Qeutta 1510; Zakir Hussain Siddiqui v. Mst. Nazim Bano and others 1989 CLC Kar. 1062; Faheemuddin v. Sabeeha Begum PLD 1991 SC 1074 and Kausar Perveen v. The State 2004 YLR 2242 ref.

2010 M L D 470
[Karachi]
Before Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, J

ATIQ-UR-REHMAN---Applicant
Versus
Mst. SADIA and another---Respondents.

Re marry would not disentitle mother from retaining the custody of minor

Re marry would not disentitle mother from retaining the custody of minor (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---custody of minor ---Welfare of minor ---Determination---second marriage of mother---Effect---Scope---Courts below handed over custody of minor to father---Validity---Courts below took into consideration the second marriage of mother and age of minor ---While deciding custody of minor , welfare of minor , and nothing else, was the paramount consideration---Courts below were not justified in disturbing the custody of minor ---Father admitted that suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of the minor had been decreed against him---Real mother could not be deprived of her son due to her second marriage ---Father filed application for custody of minor subsequent to passing of decree of maintenance allowance against him---Father was least interested in welfare of minor , rather, he filed the application for custody of minor in order to frustrate the decree of maintenance allowance passed against him---minor was growing up properly and getting proper education in a private school---minor was living with his mother since birth and had developed love and affection for her---Disturbance in custody at this stage would psychologically tell upon his personality in future---No substitute to real mother---Lap of mother was cradle of God---Remarriage of the mother, ipso facto, would not disentitle her from retaining the custody of minor ---Poverty of mother was no ground to disentitle her from the custody of the minor ---Islamic law was subservient to the welfare of the minor ---Petition was allowed---Application of father for custody of minor was dismissed.

2016 CLC 1460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. RABIA BIBI
Side Opponent : ABDUL QADIR

law acquittal 489-f

law acquittal 489-f (Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

S. 489 -F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417 (2-A)---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Appeal against acquittal---Dishonouring of a cheque, which should be towards fulfilment of an obligation, or repayment of loan was an essential ingredient for bringing the case within the ambit of S.489 -F, P.P.C.---Complainant, had failed to bring forward any proof which would substantiate that cheque in question was for the fulfilment of any obligation and had completely denied any sort of record regarding the alleged transaction---Complainant was running the business of grains, but he was not keeping any record to establish the transaction---Mere possession/issuance of a cheque was insufficient for convicting accused, but said cheque was to be backed by certain obligation or a loan, which was missing in the present case---Cheque in question, having repeatedly been denied by accused by stating that they had no business transaction with the complainant, heavy burden lay upon the complainant to discharge the onus of proof completely, which he had failed to do---Nothing was wrong with the impugned judgment, as the same was in consonance with law and facts---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2015 YLR 691 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SHAHID HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : PREM KUMAR

No compromise will be allowed in non compoundable offence

No compromise will be allowed in non compoundable offence ( Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

----S.345---Compounding of offence---Offence against individual/ society---Distinction---Offence against individual cannot be equated with that of an offence against society---Individual does not have any right to compound the offence which in fact was against the society and not against him.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 345(6) & (7)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 459---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Damihah and Hurt while Trespass---Compounding of offence---Accused were convicted and sentenced for imprisonment of various terms by Trial Court---Accused sought their acquittal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties---Validity---Offence under S. 495, P.P.C. was an independent offence which had its own punishment in addition to punishment for causing Qatl or causing hurt or attempt to cause Qatl or hurt therefore, such offence could not be merged into main offence---When one was tried for two different offences and awarded punishments in both of them, then competence of one to compound one offence could not affect legality of sentence awarded for other independent offence by competent court of law---Likelihood of failure of prosecution to prove charge was no ground to make a non-compoundable offence as compoundable---Attempt to compound an offence, even if failed, could not bring any consequence on merits of the case however, failure of prosecution/complainant to establish charge could give certain rights to accused against complainant/prosecution---High Court accepted compromise to the extent of convictions awarded under Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C. while for the offence under S. 459, P.P.C. the same was declined---Application was allowed accordingly.

2004 PCr.LJ 736; 2007 MLD 1269; PLD 2008 Kar. 420; Muhammad Rawab v. State 2004 SCMR 1170; Muhammad Tufail v. Sessions Judge Attock PLD 2004 SC 89 and Umer Hayat v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 125 ref.
2016 M L D 580 [Sindh]

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
MOHARRAM alias MAROO---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent