Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Respondent no 10 accused in case FIR No. 533 dt. 2-9-2015 U/S 302 has been exonerated/ discharged during investigation, whereas petitioner complainant/ accused in cross FIR No. 532 alleges malafide. the same was quashed to be put on trial together. Directed that challan be put in Court within 14 days for initiating trial in both cases.

Summary: Necessary ingredients of offence u/s 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not disclosed through the complaint. ---- BackgroundMuhammad Bilal filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 13.11.2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dera Ismail Khan, which dismissed his complaint under Sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complaint arose from allegations that Ahmad Sultan and others had illegally encroached upon land owned and previously possessed by Bilal and his family in Dera Ismail Khan. Despite multiple reports to police authorities, no actions were taken against the respondents, leading Bilal to file the now-dismissed complaint.----Issues:Whether the dismissal of the complaint under Sections 3/4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was appropriate, given the alleged lack of opportunity for Bilal to prove his case through evidence.Whether the matter constitutes a criminal offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 or merely a civil dispute.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal of Bilal's complaint, finding that the complaint and accompanying documents did not disclose the necessary ingredients of an offense under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The court noted that the actions described in the complaint amounted to mere encroachment without the intent (mens rea) required for an offense under the act. It was concluded that the issue at hand was of a civil nature rather than criminal dispossession. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but Bilal was given the liberty to pursue his claims in a civil court.---Ingrediants: 1. Intentional Dispossession: The accused must have intentionally entered or remained on the property with the intent to dispossess the rightful owner.----2. Unlawful Entry: The entry onto the property must be without lawful authority, not merely a civil encroachment or boundary dispute.----3.Mens Rea (Criminal Intent): There must be clear evidence of a criminal intent to deprive the rightful owner of possession, not just incidental or accidental occupation.----4. Dispossession or Attempted Dispossession: There must be an actual dispossession or a clear attempt to dispossess the lawful owner of the property.---Citations/Precedents:Wagar Ali and others vs. The State through Prosecutor/AG (PLD 2011 SC 181): The Supreme Court of Pakistan highlighted the distinction between illegal dispossession involving intentional property grabbing and mere encroachment, which typically indicates a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act.---Direct Quote: ''The above allegation clearly indicates that it is an encroachment rather than criminal trespass or unlawful entry with the intention of grabbing the land in dispute or of dispossession of the appellant/complainant. Mere encroachment is something different from Illegal Dispossession as the former does not involve intentional grabbing of the property, therefore, the element of mens rea is missing in the instant case; therefore, I found that necessary ingredient of offence under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not disclosed through the complaint, therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court.''

Summary: The court after evaluating the evidence has rightly fixed the alternate price of dowry articles equal to Rs.100,000/-. No exception can be taken to the same. Even otherwise, a decree for recovery of dowry articles amounting to Rs.100,000/- or less is not appealable and Constitutional petition cannot be used as alternate appeal unless some illegality, perversity or jurisdictional defect is pointed out which the petitioner has failed to point out in the finding of the court.

Summary: Summoning of witness with permission of the Court. Party seeking such permission was to show good cause for failing to submit list of witnesses before Court or for omitting the name of such witness in the list. Inadvertence, as claimed by petitioner, was not a good cause for allowing a party to produce the list of witnesses after the time fixed for the same had expired.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:Arif Hussain Danish filed a criminal appeal under section 410 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 21-08-2017 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit-Baltistan. He was convicted and sentenced for various offenses, including those under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Arms Ordinance.----Issues:Whether the appellant was rightly convicted based on the charges against him.Whether there were any irregularities or legal flaws in the trial court's judgment warranting interference by the appellate court.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The prosecution's case was based on the complaint of Israr-ud-Din, who witnessed the appellant firing on Abdul Majeed's vehicle, causing injuries. Eye witnesses and police officials caught the appellant red-handed while he was fleeing, and the weapon used in the crime was recovered from him.The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court's judgment was against the evidence on record and that the appellant was convicted on flimsy grounds. However, the prosecution contended that the evidence, including ocular and medical evidence, along with recoveries and confessional statements, proved the appellant's guilt beyond doubt.After analyzing the evidence and arguments, the court found the testimonies of the eye witnesses to be credible and consistent. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence, and the recovery of the weapon strengthened the prosecution's case. Additionally, the appellant's confession further incriminated him.The court concluded that there were no material irregularities or legal flaws in the trial court's judgment that warranted interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.----Citations/Precedents:Section 410 Cr.P.CAnti-Terrorism Act 1997

Summary: Summary pending