Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 683

ABDUL RASHID vs S.H.O

CitationK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 683
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 3183 of 1989,
Date1989-06-03
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Lone
ResultN/A

ORDER

Muhammad Afzal. Lone, J.- A case has been registered against the petitioner and seven others vide F.I.R No.89 dated 22.3.1989 with the Police Station Wando District Gujranwala under Sections 302/307/148/149 PPC'for the murder of one Muhammad Yasin.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that the persons named in para No. 1 of the writ petition, on 21.3.1989 trespassed into haveli of Muhammad Hanif co-accused and caused injuries to the petitioner and others. The details of the injuries and the persons who suffered the same, have been detailed in para No.2 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents for registration of the case but his request has, gone unheeded. A direction is, therfore, sought to be issued to the respondents to register a criminal case against the accused.

From the perusal of the record I find that in the parawise comments submitted by the respondent S.H.O to Writ Petition No. 1631 of 1989, filed by Abdul Sattar injured co-accused, it is specifically stated,"Haji Muhammad Hanif and Abdul Rashid, the alleged injured have not joined police investigation so far and are absconding. The plea of the petitioner for the registration of case or otherwise shall, therefore, be considered when they join the investigation and substantiate their version."

2. The purpose of loding an F.I.R, primarily is to give information to the police authorities as to the commission of a cognizable offence. An F.I.R has already been registered and machinery of the law set in motion. The investigation of the murder case is still in hand. The learned counsel states that the petitioner has joined the investigation but his this assertion seemingly is replete with infirmity. A person who is fugative from law is not entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction which is essentially discretionary. In any case the petitioner can place his version before the Investigating Authority and produce proof in support thereof. If such evidence is adduced by the petitioner it shall be recorded and the respondent shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch