Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HAKEEM versus STATE

Sections 200, 202 and 439 of the Required Parties Private Complaint, removal of the failure to make the parties to the parties to be reviewed, an FIR was filed, which was dismissed, then it filed a private complaint on the same subject, The trial court also dismissed the private complaint. The preliminary inquiry was filed by the complainant before the High Court in which it imposed the state as a mere defendant and the accused was not made a defendant. It was raised by the complainant that the accused had There is no place to take part in the proceedings, therefore, before that they were not a necessary party to the Criminal Revision Validation Estate was added as a party, which had nothing to do with direct complaint and The matter was resolved because the B class person against whom any order was to be passed must be the party to the action. The violations of the procedure taken by the manufacturer were in violation of the Criminal Code of Conduct, 1898. The High Court refused to accept the request. F complains on the logic that if the accused was present at the time of the initial investigation and the matter There was no Lux Standi to fight, so at that point they were not a party. The question was not whether the Lux Standi was present for any party to appear at a particular stage but the question was whether the court was a person. Use the jurisdiction against the alien who did not participate in the action. And the person against whom any proceeding was ordered to proceed must be a party before the court is subject to review. tax advocates from Mansehra lawyer