Find a Lawyer

CH. WAHEED-UZ-ZAMAN versus JAMIL

Sections 419/420/468/471 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Sections 173 and 561 were mistakenly upheld by the Mutual Fault and such error was corrected by the Appellate Authority. Or was found wrong. Such detection by the collector would not be a criminal magistrate, even though the police had canceled the unanimous FIR through a short order unanimous with the report, but under section 561 AA, CRPC, For, he had to see. Was the above order really available on the grounds under which the FIR was ordered to be canceled and the mere remand of the matter on technical grounds did not promote the execution of justice and the D-section P.S. Incidentally, the investigation by the local police revealed that the suspect was found guilty and on the recommendation of the police the magistrate had taken action to cancel the FIR. The magistrate should have briefly explained the basis and mat of Ariel Jas. Based on the report, the request for cancellation was submitted, but only under section 555A would such an error be filed. Can not be limited, the RP can not accept more. No proper material was indicated to link the accused to the alleged crime of guaranteeing his conviction, but on the contrary the dispute between the parties was primarily civil in nature and every civil wrongdoing resulted in a criminal offense. Did not originate; this unconstitutional order of revocation of the FIR by the magistrate was neither misleading nor material, nor was it arbitrarily granted without the request of the independent judicial mind and accordingly. Retained law firms from Sudhnoti lawyer