Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 392 and 215 of the robbery, collecting gifts to assist in the recovery of stolen property, alleged further investigation against the accused and his co-accused. The manufacturer's car was snatched from it. With cash and a mobile phone, and when the complainant later contacted the accused, they demanded a ransom, which the complainant paid properly, but the stolen car and other goods were not returned. Six months delay in filing the FIR, the co-accused had already been granted bail by the lower court and the other co-accused, whose role was similar to the accused in the FIR contents, was found innocent during the police investigation. It was declared that the first part of the FIR was not the name of any accused but in the last part of the FIR, the complainant stated that he was Sources have reported that the accused had committed robbery with his accomplice accused, which led the plaintiff to approach him for payment of the ransom, but the complainant was unable to disclose his sources for such information. Was unsuccessful, the complainant failed to explain any compelling or convincing situation, under which he was promptly barred from filing an FIR, except to argue that he was trying to reach an agreement. Identification of the accused was not paraded by payment of the ransom to return the robbery car and other goods; the complainant immediately filed a report to the police and tried to mobilize the law and settle the matter. The month was responsible for not waiting. Personal conflicts with the accused, and if the police immediately
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
