Find a Lawyer

MST. ABIDA KHATOON versus STATE

Sections 262626 and 1 561 were requested in the petition for the petitioner / affected woman to proceed to the trial court in the trial court`s eating place exclusively because the applicant in her hometown Was in serious danger. Appeal to the trial court at this place is `eaten 'as the petitioner himself had sworn before the High Court that he was never abducted by anyone or his present husband, then any In such a case it could never be convicted by a court of law. Consequently, further action under the aforesaid FIR will result in the trial of the victim, the transfer filed by the affected person. The application was changed under Section 1 561A, CRPC and proceedings were terminated under FIR \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• TRI-STAR ENERGY LTD. v. PROVINCE OF SINDH 2010 CLC 849
• MUHAMMAD USMAN v. State 2010 MLD 850
• LIAQUAT ALI v. State 2010 YLR 850
• Engineer MAJEED AHMED MEMON v. LIAQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDCIAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES JAMSHORO 2010 PLC(CS) 856
• JAM v. TALUKA NAZIM, TALUKA MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, LARKANA 2010 CLC 860
• KHUDA BUX v. State 2010 MLD 864
• Dr. SHAHNAZ IMDAD KEHAR v. JINNAH POST GRADUATE MEDICAL CENTER 2010 PLC(CS) 868
• P & G INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GR-II), KARACHI 2010 PTD 870

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocate from Wan Radha Ram lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes