Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 4562 of 1986, decided on 11th January, 1987.
---Art. 199--Writ jurisdiction--Registration of cross-case and transfer of investigation of case registered about incident--Two reports called from Superintendent of Police revealing investigation to have been finalized in independent and impartial manner--Plea of petitioner alleging initiation of attack by other party found totally incorrect in investigation--All accused found guilty of charge by investigation officer--High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, held,' would not enter into realm of facts to determine correctness or otherwise of allegations contained in writ petition--Petitioner might have recourse to independent complaint before Trial Court--Writ petition dismissed in limine.
M.D. Tahir for Petitioner.
Through the present constitutional petition, the petitioner, Muhammad Saeed, has sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to register a criminal case against Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Ramzan under section 307 /34, P.P . for having fired recklessly on Muhammad Siddique. A further direction has been sought to the effect that investigation of the case registered against Muhammad Siddique and five others under section 302/307/ 148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 66, dated 22-6-1986 at Police Station, Shahbhor, District Okara, be transferred to some independent agency.
2. It has been contended in the writ petition that as a matter of fact, the aforementioned Muhammad Akram etc. resorted to reckless firing at Muhammad Siddique and others. Persons fired at also returned the firing. Resultantly Muhammad Sharif sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The local police registered the aforementioned murder case against Muhammad Siddique and his five co-accused, while no case has been registered against Muhammad Akram etc. for firing at Muhammad Siddique and others.
3. In this case, the S.P. Okara was directed to submit his personal report in the matter after necessary probe through some senior police officer of the District. Again an order was made on 15-12-1986 on an application viz. C.M. No. 3176/86 submitted by the petitioner that the S.P. should submit another report containing the conclusions arrived at by him with regard to the facts of the case.
4. In compliance with the orders of this Court, first report was submitted by the S.P. Okara on 30-10-1986. He has also sent a second report on 23-12-1986. In the meantime the petitioner has filed yet another C.M. application viz. C.M. No. 28/87, seeking stay of proceedings of the murder case pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, till the decision of the present writ petition. The writ petition as also the Miscellaneous Application No. 28/87, shall be disposed of by this order.
5. It transpires from the contents of both the reports submitted by the S.P. Okara, that probe /investigation in the case has been finalized by the D.S.P. City Okara in an independent and impartial manner, in compliance with the orders of this Court. As a result of such probe, he has come to the conclusion that plea of the petitioner to the effect that Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Ramzan had initiated the attack first on Muhammad Siddique was totally incorrect. To this conclusion, the S.P. Okara has also agreed, it has also been found by the D.S.P. as also the S.P., that all the accused were guilty of the charge and that the allegations against them were unanimously supported by the P.Ws.
6. In the light of the contents of the reports submitted by the S.P. Okara, the contentions raised in the present writ petition stand contradicted and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction has not to enter into realm of facts and is thus not supposed to determine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised, may, of course, have recourse to an independent complaint before the trial Court. In this view of the matter the writ petition as also the miscellaneous application are dismissed in limine.
S.A./M-299/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer