| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 664 2019 SLD 664 2019 PCRLJ 429 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 112 of 2017, decision Dated: 08-02-2018. Hearing Dated: 11-01-2018.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mohammad Masood Khan
Respondent(s) by: Shoaib Mirza, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan and Muntazir Mehdi, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sindh
Criminal Revision Application No. 112 of 2017, decision Dated: 08-02-2018. Hearing Dated: 11-01-2018.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mohammad Masood Khan
Respondent(s) by: Shoaib Mirza, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan and Muntazir Mehdi, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sindh
QADIR KHAN MANDOKHAIL
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 200,202,203
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 202 & 203---Private complaint, dismissal of---Petitioner filed complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. alleging that the proposed accused/respondent was running business as partner/manager and obtained rebate of billions of rupees from Federal Board of Revenue, Customs Department and other Government departments on unregistered/local invoices and had not disclosed the assets---Allegedly, proposed accused had opened different business accounts in and out of country on the basis of fake documents and had got registered the partnership firm and also set-up a firm/business abroad---Proposed accused had concealed the fact that he was a government employee, despite he was involved in business activities and had obtained business passport without taking "No Objection Certificate" from the concerned authorities---Trial Court examined the complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C. as well as his two witnesses under S. 202, Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant was not the aggrieved person to file the said complaint against the proposed accused---Validity---Informant/complainant did not require any particular relation and nexus with the crime but disclosure of commission of cognizable offences was sufficient to set the law into motion---In the present complaint, Complainant had levelled various allegations against the proposed accused however, none of the said allegations related to any alleged cognizable offence---Vague and general allegations without disclosing required ingredients of offence would not be sufficient grounds for proceedings---Record showed that various litigations were subjudice between the parties since long---Respondent in his statements, had given detail of litigations between the parties, also the applications/complaints made to different authorities---Said facts had also been admitted by the complainant---Pendency of various civil and criminal litigations between the parties, most of which had been initiated against respondent seemed to be nothing but to pressurize the respondent to bow down before the complainant and get settled the financial dispute which was admittedly…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492