Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1996 Lahore 189

SURRAYA BEGUM vs THE STATE and another

CitationPLD 1996 Lahore 189
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,360/T of 1995
Date1995-11-30
Judge(s)Sh. Ijaz Nisar
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' This is an application under section 526, Cr.P.C. For the transfer of a case under section 302, P.P.C.

From the Court of Mr. Ikram-ul-Haq, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

2. Surayya Begum petitioner contends that her brother was murdered by Liaqat Ali etc. Respondents. The deceased's brother-in-law reported the matter to the police but later joined hands with the accused and is now trying for their acquittal. The respondents have moved a bail application in the Court of Mr. Ikram-ul-Haq, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and when she appeared and apprised the Court of the true position, it compelled her to effect a compromise with the accused-respondents.

3. In reply to a query by the Court, Surayya Begum petitioner stated that she was neither the complainant nor the prosecution witness in the case sought to be transferred. She was asked to produce a copy of the bail application moved by the accused but she expressed her inability. She was also asked to give the date when she appeared before the Court and was forced to effect a compromise with the accused but she gave an evasive reply.

4. Under section 526, Cr.P.C. Only the .Party interested can make an application to the High Court.

The expression "party interested" is not defined by the Legislature but generally speaking the State as the prosecutor, the accused persons, the complainant or the witness are the parties interested in and concerned with the case and anyone of them may make an application under section 526,.

Cr.P.C. The above category of 'party interested' cannot be enlarged so as to include even relatives of the parties, because if this is allowed any person. Claiming relationship with the parties may move a transfer application for ulterior motive resulting in unnecessary delay in the conclusion of the trial. As in the present case the transfer application has neither been moved, by the State or by the complainant or any of the prosecution witness nor is any good ground shown for transfer of the case on my own initiative under section 526(3), Cr.P.C. I therefore, decline to entertain the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has no locus standi to seek transfer of the case.

Consequently, the application is dismissed in limine.

Cited by 3 cases

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