SHAUKAT NAWAZ MIR versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
Sections 380 and 109 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 44 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of residence, theft and criminal mischief. The High Court could not interfere with the investigation, but when the investigating agency demonstrated misconduct and abuse of powers, the High Court could protect the person who was being prosecuted by the police suit. ? It was ordered but was not challenged in front of any higher forum and it was directed to the development authority's functionaries to protect the rights of the defendants breaking the illegal construction because the court It was directed that the registration of the case against the accused was not valid. Violation of authority and civil court decision, which was also a misuse of law and even where no permission could be granted after the registry, FIR investigation was initiated by the police. The proper course for the defendants was before the civil court. The decision and decree of the court were to be challenged or at least to be filed before the trial court for violation of the direction given in the judgment. If any action was taken by the Development Authority against the law, the defendant / victim was to sue for damages. Development Authority officials were parties to the case and were instructed to execute the given command and take action. The criminal liability will not be changed and the continuation of proceedings on the basis of an unidentified FIR will frustrate the civil court's final decision.
