FIR against harassed applicants / complainant applicants / suspects and CIA for abolishing an Ordinance (Implementation of Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 () of Section 1 561 Property R filed a case in which the matter was moved for investigation, the report praying for the settlement of the FIR was not accepted in the B class magistrate and the matter was ordered to proceed and the petition was moved. The petitioners had filed an order to dismiss the order from the magistrate. The FIR Rupe, who had committed the crime against the applicant, filed a case against the defendants and one of the respondents filed an FIR against the applicant as a counter-attack, only to benefit his relative. The progress made by the applicant's counsel did not indicate that it was attractive or appealing because the offense, if committed by the respondent's relative, could not be stated. That the aforesaid respondent was in league with his relative in the crime which he allegedly committed. In the absence of any allegations about the aforementioned league, this person has not made any allegation with his relative in connection with the crime, it cannot be said that in order to benefit his relative, the defendant The FIRFR filed by Ali was incorrectly filed, which contained a specific FIR, specifying specific allegations and roles that required full investigation and investigation, which required the magistrate. Had also taken notice of the case in which the accused
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
