Find a Lawyer

MIAN FAIZ MUHAMMAD versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION

Section 561A Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the FIR Complainant has been charged with cross-checking that the applicant who offered to buy the property for the complainant. The defendant received a disputed amount through, but the applicant has not purchased the property. Nor did the defendant deny his claim that he had never received any checks from the respondent / complainant and cross-check, if any, issued by the respondent in the name of the other person. Went, the facts stated in his request Section Section P, on the basis of which the FIR was filed, were different from the facts disclosed by the respondents a day later and his witnesses filed a police FIR. Not only did the defendant contradict the defendant's subpoena in his statements before, but never before the inquiry officer's registration A cross-check was issued by the respondents in the name of the respondent and no evidence was available on the record to show that the applicant received some money from the alleged inspection of the garland by the police and the respondents His confrontation with the victim was seen on the face of the record, despite police manipulation, no one can point to the applicant's intervention in the case and a case is registered. Intention to launch the sheer false, fabricated and misrepresented facts against the applicant as found and the patent has shown on the record that no offense can be proved against the applicant without any legal justification. And also with the FIR best advocate from Jehanian lawyer