| Case ID |
44dd9dd2-9803-4c52-af6a-64c07b7d9c08 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 172 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 10, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 29, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court ruled on the petitioners' request to quash FIR No. 846/2014, stating that the allegations of criminal breach of trust under section 405 of the Penal Code were not substantiated as the necessary element of 'entrustment' of property was not proven. The Court emphasized that the FIR did not meet the required legal thresholds, and the determination of facts related to the agreement and property exchange should be left to the Trial Court. The petitioners were advised to pursue available alternate remedies under the law, such as sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that no investigation report had been submitted, and the FIR was insufficient to justify quashing the case at this stage. |
| Summary |
In the case of Writ Petition No. 172 of 2015, the Islamabad High Court examined the petitioners' plea to quash FIR No. 846/2014, which was filed for alleged criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code. The Court found that the fundamental requirement of 'entrustment' was absent in the claims made against the petitioners. The ruling highlighted the need for clear legal definitions and the importance of civil agreements in criminal matters. The Court advised the petitioners to seek relief through the trial court using existing legal provisions. This case underscores the judicial approach to balancing civil and criminal law, emphasizing the necessity for substantive evidence in criminal allegations. Legal practitioners and scholars can glean insights into how courts interpret jurisdictional limits and the nature of evidence required in cases involving property disputes. The decision serves as a precedent for similar future cases, reinforcing the principle that mere allegations without supporting evidence cannot sustain criminal charges. Keywords such as 'criminal breach of trust', 'entrustment', and 'constitutional jurisdiction' are critical for understanding the legal landscape surrounding this case. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ATHAR MINALLAH, J
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Adeeb Ahmed Abbasi for Petitioners,
Ch. Riasat Ali Gondal and Muhammad Ali Bhatti for Respondents,
Malik Zahoor Awan, Standing Counsel,
Muhammad Abbas, Sub-Inspector
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and others
|
| Respondents |
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2301,
2015 PCRLJ 576
|
| Other Citations |
Allah Rakhio and others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 551,
Shah Fahad and another v. The State 2014 YLR 2241,
Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station, Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCr.LJ 1900,
Shaikh Muhammad Taqi v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 963,
Sh. Naveedur Rehman v. The State and 2 others 2010 PCr.LJ 1340,
Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another 2008 SCMR 834,
Zulfiqar Mustafa v. Station House Officer and 2 others 2010 PCr.LJ 590,
Shevo v. Regional Police Officer, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 15 others PLD 2009 Kar. 24,
Muhammad Mansha v. Station House Officer, Police Station City, Chiniot, District Jhang and others PLD 2006 SC 598,
Muhammad Yaqoob v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and 2 others PLD 2000 Lah. 421,
Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. The State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575,
Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276,
Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan and others PLD 2013 SC 401,
Rehmat Ali and others v. Ahmad Din and others 1991 SCMR 185,
Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122,
Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 19,
Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Courts of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Constitution of Pakistan
|
| Sections |
405,
406,
199
|