ABDUL GHAFAR versus ISHTIAQ AHMAD, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I, TANK
Section 561 A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/34 Qatl e amd, the joint intention to cancel the injunction against the police officers (applicants) was that they killed the deceased and the incident. The police attempted to show the police as a complaint to the police. The petition for justice under Section 22A, CCPC, after which the police officers were directed to register a case against the police, submitted a final report under section 173 to the CCPCFIR. Praying for the cancellation, which the magistrate did not agree with and instead instructing the station house officer to furnish a full invoice within seven days. The appointment of the police officers was that the magistrate ignored the last report submitted by the police under section 173, CR PC. In the event of a disagreement with the opinion of the police, the Magistrate can send the trial to the Sessions Judge, and that the Magistrate had subjected section 173 to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, in the CRPC validity case. A senior police officer's letter was disclosed in the record. The District Public Prosecutor recommends the termination of the existing FIR on the basis of the final report, which shows that the police officers under Section 173, Cr PC, must be neglected for proper enforcement of the law magistrate. Not submitted to the report submitted by , And may not accept the findings obtained by the Investigating Officer, there was no illegal or irregular incident to the police, and the police did not agree to the final report of the order by the magistrate to terminate the order. Offer a full invoice within two
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
