FEROZ KHAN BALOUCH versus FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEY
Section 248, 249 A&265 Financial Institutions (Restoration of Financing) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Section 20 (1) (b) and (2) Return of Complaint Complaint against Fraud Commission Against the first complaint filed by the applicant, the bank was dismissed by the special banking court through the illegal business complainant bank. About ten years after the first complaint was filed, the second complaint was filed, which the bank dismissed from the second complaint. Withdrew after two years, the bank lodged the third complaint under which the applicant filed a complaint under section 249A, CRPC. Under section 265 of his suit was changed to CRPC, and the complaint was dismissed as valid under section 248; the CCP will result in the acquittal and It was mandatory. Filing a third complaint on the same facts to acquit the accused while keeping the facts of the case in mind while allowing the magistrate / judge to withdraw the complaint was completely misunderstood and illegal after withdrawing the second complaint. ? First, there was no plausible explanation given by the complaining bank lawyer about how the complaint was lodged after two years, after the withdrawal of the second complaint. Secondly, the withdrawal of the complaint under Section 248, CRPC, will result in the acquittal of the accused, once the complaint has been withdrawn for any reason, and if allowed, the result of filing the third complaint. In order to allow requests, the circumstances were illegal and unlawful, the defunct order was set aside. r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
