Summary: The petitioner in the case brought before the court alleged that the judgment and decree were issued without the respondent's consent and without sufficient opportunity for reconciliation. The petitioner expressed willingness to reconcile for the sake of their children. The court noted the timeline of events, indicating several opportunities for reconciliation proceedings, which the petitioner failed to fully engage in. The court emphasized the importance of reconciliation but ultimately granted the dissolution of marriage based on Khula due to the irreconcilable differences between the spouses. It referenced Islamic law and previous court decisions to support its decision. Khurshid Bibi Vs Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97): This case was cited to highlight the interpretation of Islamic law regarding marriage dissolution, particularly the wife's right to seek Khula under certain circumstances. The court emphasized that Islam allows for the separation of spouses if they cannot live together harmoniously. Abid Hussain Vs Additional District Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh (2006 SCMR 100): This case was referenced to illustrate the purpose behind the non-appealable nature of decrees issued by family courts, emphasizing the protection of women from prolonged and costly litigation. Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, etc. Vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236): This case laid down principles regarding the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to demonstrate injustice caused by the impugned order before invoking the court's discretionary powers. Balqis Fatimaís case and Umar Bibi and Sayeeda Khanam: The court referred to these cases to discuss historical interpretations of Islamic law regarding Khula and the role of the Qazi in granting separation between spouses. These legal precedents were invoked to justify the court's decision and demonstrate the legal basis for granting the dissolution of marriage based on Khula in the case at hand. The court highlighted that the decree for Khula was non-appealable according to the Family Court Act, emphasizing the protection of women from prolonged litigation. Finally, the court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no legal basis for interference in the judgment and decree.

Summary: Bail granted The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 296 dated 11.11.2015, registered for an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Qadir Pur, District Jhang. The allegation against the petitioner was that he issued a cheque worth Rs. 1,700,000/- to the complainant, which was dishonored upon presentation to the bank. Upon hearing arguments and examining the record, the court observed that the petitioner was facing two criminal cases simultaneously for the same alleged financial obligation of Rs. 1,700,000/-. It noted that the FIR did not specify the nature of the liability against which the cheques were issued, and the investigation did not clarify this aspect either. The court highlighted that to constitute an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, there must be the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intention towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Mere issuance of a cheque without satisfying these prerequisites does not constitute the alleged offense. The court concluded that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, as it was yet to be determined whether the cheques were issued with dishonest intention or for repayment of a loan. Considering that the alleged abscondence of the petitioner was not sufficient to disentitle him to post-arrest bail, the court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/-.

Summary: In the instant case, an instant writ petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the legality of an inquiry conducted by the Federal Investigating Agency (F.I.A.) regarding the alleged illegal issuance of loans and money laundering by the petitioner bank and its employees. The petitioner's counsel argued that no illegality had been committed by the bank in the issuance of loans and that the allegations of money laundering were baseless. The petitioners prayed for the inquiry to be dropped, the respondents to be restrained from harassing bank employees, and compliance with procedural requirements under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for obtaining bank records. On the other hand, the learned law officer representing the respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as an adequate alternative remedy existed under Section 22-A (6) of the Cr.P.C., which allows complaints regarding neglect, failure, or excess committed by police authorities to be addressed by an ex-officio justice of peace. The law officer also argued that the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, supersedes Section 94 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing both parties, the court deliberated on whether the term "police authorities" in Section 22-A (6) of the Cr.P.C. encompasses F.I.A. The court examined the powers and functions of the F.I.A. under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, and concluded that F.I.A. officials fall within the definition of "police authorities" as they exercise powers similar to provincial police officers under the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that an adequate alternative remedy exists under Section 22-A (6) of the Cr.P.C., allowing complaints against F.I.A. authorities to be addressed by an ex-officio justice of peace. It held that invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 without exhausting this remedy is not permissible. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition without considering its merits.

Summary: The Supreme Court examined two main questions in the case. Firstly, whether the constitutional petitions were maintainable before the High Court in light of the specific bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Balochistan Service Tribunal for matters related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The Court concluded that the constitutional petitions were not maintainable as the Tribunal was functional during the relevant time. Secondly, the Court considered whether there should be a joint seniority list of DSPs from all cadres/branches or separate lists depending on the nature of work. The Court noted that it is common practice in all provinces, including Islamabad Capital Territory, to prepare separate seniority lists for DSPs of the legal/prosecution branch compared to other branches. The relevant laws and rules governing the Balochistan Police did not explicitly address the issue of separate or joint seniority lists. However, considering the different branches within the police force and the distinct qualifications, training, and job responsibilities of the legal/prosecution branch, the Court found that the issuance of separate seniority lists was reasonable and aligned with practices in other provinces.Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment.

Summary: PLJ 2021 Peshawar (Note) 132 Present Muhammad Naeem Anwar J ZAHIR ULLAH and 15 others - - Petitioners versus SAMIN JAN KHAN and 6 other - - Respondents CR No 1237 - P of 2019 decided on 1072020 Specific Relief Act 1877 - - - - - - S 42 - - Civil Procedure Code 1908 Ss 12 (2) 115 - - Suit for declaration - - Ex - parte decreed - - Application for setting aside ex - parte decree - - Accepted - - Appeal Dismissed - - Interlocutory order - - Concurrent findings - - Maintainability - - Challenge to - - When Respondent No 1 has categorically stated that he was not served with any summonnotice of case than in such circumstances application could not be dismissed summarily yes if after recording of evidence it is proved that Respondent No 1 was served application would be dismissed - - Order impugned by petitioner is an interlocutory orderinterim order which does not fall within four corners of case decided for invoking jurisdiction of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - - Order of trial Court is well reasoned by holding application as maintainable and same could not be challenged in revision petition - - Matter is still open for both parties to prove their respective contentions as alleged by them in their pleadings - - There are concurrent findings of both Courts below which cannot be set at naught unless same are perverse illegal or suffering from jurisdictional defects - - Revision petition dismissed [Para 6 7 8 9] A B C D Ref 1992 and 2006 SCMR 21 Mr Ijaz Ahmed Advocate for PetitionersJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Appreciation of EvidenceNarcotic case especially when safe custody if the representative samples is not proved and the case vehicle is not produced in court.

Summary: Section of Law: 302/34 PPC.(a) Evidence in a case of capital charge must come from unimpeachable source or to be supported by strong circumstances that might remove inherent doubt attaching to evidence of interested & partisan witness.(b) A witness who keeps on changing his versions at different times, loses his credibility & cannot be relied upon for conviction on a capital charge.