Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

KHAN BAHADUR versus THE STATE


Section 302 is neither invoiced by the police nor has the magistrate complained in the sessions of the complainant and in the High Courts that the order has been ordered that the person seeking the failed concession of such person be ordered to seek special leave. So that the magistrate should be compelled to handle the case against the culprits. Appropriate course for filing a complaint before the Magistrate Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 190, misleading

1968 P Cr. L J 429

[Supreme Court]

Present: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J

MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner

versus

ABDUR RAHIM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 273 of 1967, decided on 4th December 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st September 1967, to Criminal Revision No. 514 of 1966).

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-----

-----

S. 302‑Person neither challaned by police nor summoned by committing Magistrate‑Complainant's move in Sessions and High Courts to order summoning of such person unsuccessful‑Complainant's seeking special leave to appeal to Supreme Court to oblige Magistrate to take cognizance of case against accused, held, misguided‑Proper course to file complaint before Magistrate‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 190.

Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani, Advocate Supreme Court, instruct ed by Nasim‑ul‑Haq Amjad, Attorney for Petitioner.

Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 4th December 1967.

ORDER

CORNELIUS, C. J

.‑Investigating an allegation of murder involving 5 men including the respondent, Abdur Rahim the Police presented a challan in which was shown that they had found no case against Abdur Rahim. The committing Magistrate, in his order committing the other four men for trial, stated that he found no case against Abdur Rahim, and had therefore not summoned him. The complainant moved the Sessions Court and the High Court against this order without success, and now seeks leave to appeal in this Court, to oblige the Magistrate to take cognizance of a case against Abdur Rahim. The attempt is misguided. If the petitioner wishes to pursue the matter against Abdur Rahim, his proper course is to file a complaint against him on which action by a Magistrate is obligatory under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.