| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2522 2024 SLD 2522 2024 YLR 157 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Misc. Quashment No. 60 of 2020, decided on 9th January, 2023. Date of hearing: 19th December, 2022.
Before Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
Ghulam Farid alias Farida v. the State PLD 2006 SC 53 rel. Nemo for Petitioners. Maqbool Mengal for
Respondents Nos.1 to 17. Abdul Nafay, State Counsel.
Criminal Misc. Quashment No. 60 of 2020, decided on 9th January, 2023. Date of hearing: 19th December, 2022.
Before Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
Ghulam Farid alias Farida v. the State PLD 2006 SC 53 rel. Nemo for Petitioners. Maqbool Mengal for
Respondents Nos.1 to 17. Abdul Nafay, State Counsel.
BIBI ZAINAB and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
Haji MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 345,417,561-A
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 345, 417 & 561-A---Compromise of case---Jurisdiction of High Court---Petitioners assailed final disposal of a matter on the basis of compromise---Petitioners claimed to be Wali and legal heirs of deceased but for reasons known to deceased party and notables, they were neither made party to the compromise nor any thing was brought on record regarding all surviving legal heirs of the deceased---Contention of petitioners was that their mother was illiterate lady who was not properly represented in the compromise as well as before Trial Court and petitioners were minors, who were unaware about the fact of the murder of their late father and acceptance of the compromise, which was only arrived at between the widow of deceased and respondent---Validity---As per photocopies of CNICs of petitioners issued by NADRA authorities petitioners were minors at the time of filing of petition---There was nothing on record to show the circumstances, which compelled widow of deceased and respondents not to disclose their names at the time of compromise---Such fact also escaped from the notice of Trial Court---It was not possible for High Court to re-open the case on merits in exercise of power conferred under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., that too, after lapse of more than ten (10) years---Petitioners were at liberty to avail remedy under S. 417, Cr.P.C. by following the law with legal exceptions---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J.---The instant Criminal Quashment Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- "Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nushki and also pass order to recall the acquittal order dated 30.06.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Nushki and the case vide FIR No.145/2008 may kindly be ordered to be reopened, in the interest ofjustice, equity and fairplay. " 2. The brief facts of the instant criminal quashment petition are that on the report of complainant Taj Muhammad, an…
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