IN THE COURT OF MR. JAVED ARSHAD LEARNED ADDL.

SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI.

Muhammad Ilyas son of Karam Din resinet of Houe No. 177/C-II,

Sarwar Road, Rawalpindi

Petitioner
Versus

The State
Respondent

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3 & 4 OF ILLEGAL

DISPOSSESSION ACT 2005

APPLICATION FOR ACQUITTAL OF THE PETITIONER/

ACCUSED

Respectfully sheweth:-

1. That the above captioned complaint is pending in this Honorable

court and is fixed for today.

2. That the complainant of the case has alleged in his complaint that
the petitioner has occupied his plot on 5.11.2015 unlawfully and
forcibly whereas in writ petition No. 2994/ 2005 regarding
quashment of order dated: 21.10-.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions
Judge Rawalpindi for registration of case, the Honorable High
Court on 7.12.2015 observed as under:-
“It is clear that the petitioner has paid Rs. 29,50,000/-
to respondent No.3, which accordingly to him, has been
forfeited. The possession of plot in question is with
respondent No.3 and titled documents are also in his name.
so far as the agreement to sell is concerned, the respondent
No.3 could seek the remedy before the Civil Court. Until
and unless the terms and conditions of the agreement are not
fulfilled and possession of the plot is not delivered and titled
of the same is not transferred in the name of the petitioner,
respondent No.3 could not ask for registration of criminal
case.
In view of above, the petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated: 21.10.2015 passed by learned Ex-
Officio Justice of Peace, Rawalpindi is set aside and parties
 are directed to seek relief from civil court on the basis of
agreement to sell, if so advised.”

3. That the instant complaint was filed after passing of above order
by Honorable High Court and the complainant by suppressing the
material fact from this Honorable Court obtained order dated;
7.4.2016.

4. That the complaint under section 3 and 4 illegal dispossession act

2005 is not maintainable in the presence of clear above order by
the Honorable High Court wherein the parties were directed to
seek relief from the Civil Court.

5. That even from bare perusal of complaint, cursory statement of

complainant and report from police, the complaint was liable to be
dismissed.

6. That neither the petitioner occupied any plot of the petitioner nor
tried for its occupation and also not in the possession of petitioner,
in fact an agreement between the parties was executed regarding a
plot and the complainant received Rs. 29,50,000/- from the
petitioner as earnest money/ Biana but the complainant could not
clear the titled and possession hence the petitioner stopped the
payment and filed a suit for permanent injunction which is pending
before the competent court of law and the complainant want to
usurp the received money and for this purpose he tried to get
register the criminal case against the petitioner when he failed to
do so he has filed the instant complaint and obtained summing
order of the petitioner by suppressing the real facts.

7. That the remedy available to the complainant was to seek remedy

from the Honorable Civil court which he has never availed.

8. That the police with malafide submitted the report dated: 2.4.2016
which is also vague and also mentioned the boundaries which are
different from the boundaries mentioned in the complaint.

9. That in the cursory statement of the witnesses no one has said that
the petitioner has occupied the plot in their presence.

10. That the complainant has never got demarcated the plot in
question. The land is Shamlat one and so many khasra/ khewat are
involved.

11. That the receipt of Rs. 29,50,000/- as Biana has been admitted by
the complainant in his written statement.
12. That no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

13. That there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner at all, even if

the charge is framed and evidence is recorded.

14. That as per cursory evidence no evidence is available against the

petitioner through which it can be presumed that the petitioner has
occupied any plot of the complainant and if any charge is framed
that will be groundless, hence the petitioner is liable to be acquitted
at this stage.

15. That mere pendency of the case will serve no useful purpose,
except that it will be the wastage of precious time of this
Honorable court.

16. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with
malafides and ulterior motives. He is innocent and has nothing to
do with the alleged crime.

17. That court may acquit the accused at any stage of the case, not
withstanding the fact that evidence is yet to be recorded.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, prayed this application may kindly be

accepted and the petitioners/ accused may kindly be acquitted.

This will meet the ends of justice.

Petitioner/ accused

Through

Muhammad Masroof Chaudhry

Advocate, High Court,

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.
IN THE COURT OF MR. TAHIR ASLAM LEARNED ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI.

State Vs. Ilyas etc

Case FIR No.394/18 dated: 19.06.2018

Offence u/s 376 (ii) PPC
P.S. Saddar Barooni, Rawalpindi.

APPLICATION U/S 265-K CR.P.C ON BEHALF OF

ACCUSED SARDAR HUSSAIN SON OF MUHAMMAD
ASLAM

Respectfully sheweth:-

1. That the above captioned case is pending in this Honorable

court and are fixed for today.

2. That the complainant of the case recorded her stated before

this Honorable Court, she categorically mentioned the above
said accused in the above titled case due to misunderstanding.

3. That no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

4. That there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner at all,

even if the remaining evidence is recorded.

5. That mere pendency of the case will serve no useful purpose,

except that it will be the wastage of precious time of this
Honorable court.
 6. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case
with malafides and ulterior motives. He is innocent and has
nothing to do with the alleged crime.

7. That court may acquit the accused at any stage of the case, not
withstanding the fact that some more evidence in the case was
yet to be recorded.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, prayed this application may be accepted

and the petitioners/ accused may kindly be acquitted, in the
interest of justice.

This will meet the ends of justice.

Petitioner/ accused

Through

Sardar Safeer Akram

Advocate High Court

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.

List of Books;
1. PLJ 1988 Tr.C (Lah) 32
2. PCRLJ 1992 1641 Kar.
IN THE COURT OF MR. SYED NAVEED RAZA BUKHARI
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE RAWALPINDI

Waqar Ahmed son of Muhammad Zulfiquar resident of Baghar

Sharif, Tehsil Kahuta Distt. Rawalpindi

Applicant
Versus

The state

Case FIR No.422/15 dated: 22.12.2015

Offence u/s 365-B PPC
P.S. Kahuta Distt. Rawalpindi .

APPLICATION U/S 265-K CR.P.C. ON BEHALF

OF WAQAR AHMED

Respectfully sheweth:-

1. That the above captioned case is pending in this Honorable

court and are fixed for today.

2. That above mentioned case has been registered against the

accused person/ Waqar Ahmed on the complaint of Mehmood
Ahmed son of Muhammad Afsar by receiving the information
from 3rd person.

3. That the accused person/ applicant was apprehended by the

local police and the alleged abductee got recorded her
statement in the presence of accused person in the court of
Illaqa Magistrate Mr. Syed Jahanzaib Bukhari in which she
stated that she was not forced or compel by the accused person
to go any where so that the accused person is totally innocent
and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged occurrence.
 4. That the applicant moved an application for bail after arrest in
which the complainant and alleged abductee appeared before
the worthy Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Addl. Session Judge
Rawalpindi and both sworn the affidavits stating therein that
we are satisfied that the present applicant is not our accused
and we are not going to pursue the instant case. Moreover also
stated that if the applicant be released on bail are acquitted in
this case they have no objection in this regard.

5. That in the light of the statement of alleged abductee under

section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no chance of conviction of the
petitioner in the instant case.

6. That no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

7. That there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner at all,

even if the remaining evidence is recorded.

8. That mere pendency of the case will serve no useful purpose,

except that it will be the wastage of precious time of this
Honorable court.

9. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case

with malafides and ulterior motives. He is innocent and has
nothing to do with the alleged crime.

10. That court may acquit the accused at any stage of the
case, not withstanding the fact that some more evidence in the
case was yet to be recorded.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, prayed this application may be accepted and

the petitioner/ accused may kindly be acquitted in the instant
case.

This will meet the ends of justice.

Applicant / accused

Through

Sardar Imran
 Advocate, High Court,

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE CENTRAL

ISLAMABAD

State Vs. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar etc

Case FIR No.91/2014 dated: 26.12.2014

Offence u/s 161, 162, 409, 109, PPC r/w 5(2) 47 PCA
P.S. FIA/ACC Distt. Islamabad.

APPLICATION U/S 265-K CR.P.C.

ON BEHALF OF NADEEM AHMED ABRO

Respectfully sheweth:-
1. That the above captioned case is pending in this
Honorable court and are fixed for 15 January 2016.

2. That a case FIR No. 91 of 2014 referred to above was

registered against some persons and they were even
apprehended by the FIA and as such the petitioner was not
an accused person in the above said FIR.

3. That interim challan (Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C) was firstly

submitted in this Honorable Court in February 2015 and
lateron final challan has been submitted in this Honorable
Court in October 2015.

4. That the petitioner applied for bail before in the above

tilted case which bail before arrest was confirmed vide
order dated: 25.2.2015 by this Honorable Court.

5. That the petitioner had joined investigation during the

proceedings and pendency of bail before arrest and proved
his innocence.

8. That the petitioner remained as Director Land &

Rehabilitation CDA w.e.f. 31.12. 2013 till 31.12.2014,
besides this the petitioner remained posted under the
Government of Punjab, Sindh and Federal Government on
various responsible posts and earned good name and
reputation throughout and there had been no complaint or
any allegation whatsoever of any irregularity regarding he
service of the petitioner throughout his unblemished
carrier in the service and always earned outstanding ACRs
for his dedicated and devoted performance.

9. That in the complete challan submitted this Honorable

Court the FIA has opted to mention the name of the
petitioner in column No. 3 of the challan alongwith other
accused persons which finds mentioned at serial No.2 of
the said challan.
10. That since the petitioner’s name has been included in
the challan without any incriminating substance or
evidence against the petitioner which exercise on the part
of FIA is malafide, illegal, unjustified and unlawful and
entitles the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court.

11. That the petitioner seeks acquittal on the following

amongst other

GROUNDS:-

A. That as already mentioned above the petitioner’s bail

before arrest was confirmed vide order dated: 25.2.2015
and it has been held in this Honorable Court “still no
role has been attributed to any of the present petitioners.
Hence, they have good case for seeking the extra
ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail”. It is pertinent to
mention here that all the three complainants appeared in
person and sworn in their respective affidavits and
exonerated the petitioner of the charge and that they do
not want to proceed against the petitioner.

B. That in the interim challan the petitioner was never

mentioned as an accused person nor any incriminating
substance was mentioned therein.

C. That in the complete challan the FIA has opted to

mention the petitioner as an accused person in column
No. 3 of the said challan but without any further
development in the investigations and without any fresh
 material against the petitioner after submission of
interim challan, nor any substantial change has took
place till the completion of investigations, hence the act
of investigating agency by mentioning the name of the
petitioner in the challan is patently illegal, null and void
and without any lawful justification and is abuse of
process of court.

D. That the investigating agency even did not bother to

take into consideration the material place on the record
and even did not appreciated the fact that all the
complainants had exonerated the petitioner in black and
white even during the course of investigation.

E. That all the statements of the prosecution witnesses

recorded during investigations reveals that there is no
iota of evidence whatsoever against the petitioner.

F. That it is a case without any evidence against the

petitioner yet the petitioner has been included in
column No. 3 in challan illegal.

G. That mere pendency of a criminal case against the

petitioner is abuse of the process of the court an there is
no probability conviction hence the charge is ground
less and the petitioner is entitled for the acquittal and
any stage.
 H. That the petitioner had never been supervisor for the
payments to be made to the land owners nor had any
relation with the Cheque Section. Which Branch works
independently for the issuance of affectee’s cheques
according to the procedure manual issued by finance
Wing, neither the petitioner was custodian of the
payment cheques as same are issued by the payments
section on the other hand the petitioner being
responsible Govt. officer always adopted the (open
door) policy, for the visitors and always tried to
facilitate all the visitors with fervor and has been
performing daily work without any pendency.

I. That it will be in the interest of justice the petitioner

may kindly be acquitted of the charge and be saved
from fruitless prosecution.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may

kindly be accepted and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted
u/s 265K Cr.P.C.

This will meet the ends of justice.

 Petitioner/ accused

Through

Muhammad Asad Chaudhry

Advocate High Court

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.

IN THE COURT OF MR. RAY MUHAMMAD NAEEM

KHARAL LEARNED ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAWALPINDI.

State Vs. Maj ® Aamer Kazi

Case FIR No.10/2012 dated: 9.1.2012

Offence u/s 302/ 109 PPC
P.S. R.A. Baza, Rawalpindi.

APPLICATION U/S 265-K CR.P.C.

Respectfully sheweth:-
1. That briefly stated the facts of the case are that the
petitioner lodged an FIR No. 10/2012 dated; 9.1.2012 u/s
302/109 PPC. P.S. Bazar Rawalpindi contending there he
received an information on telephone form Rana Iftikhar
servant of his other at ¾ P.M that this mother is seriously
injured and when he reached he saw that his mother who
was living in 39 Harley Street, Rawalpindi alone and there
was a servant namely Sardar in the said property, was
lying in injured condition and his sister Tania Hussain
Kazi was sitting with her. Later on mother of the petitioner
died and the petitioner suspected that his brother, sister,
sister in law, brother in law through some other person has
injured his mother who later on died usurp her property I
which the petitioner and his mother were hurdles and it is
apprehended that after the death of mother they will also
murder the petitioner.

2. That as the accused were influential person, hence they by

using their influence got made the petitioner accused in
the said case. Police submitted challan of the case, charge
was framed and the petitioner is facing trial.

3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the charge was

framed on 26.4.2013 and the case was fixed for evidence.
It is also pertinent to mention here that two private
complaints filed by the complainant/ respondent No.2
were dismissed by the learned ASJs vide their orders
 dated: 30.8.2012 by Mr. Ch. Muhammad Tariq Javed
Learned ASJ and order dated: 3.12.2012 Mr. Amjad Nazir
Chaudhry ASJ which orders were never assailed by the
complainant thus it attained finality.

4. That then the respondent/ complainant filed transfer

application which was also dismissed by Syed Maruf
Ahmedali Learned Sessions Judge Rawalpindi on
4.8.2012.

5. That the petitioner appeared regularly and none appeared

from prosecution side in witness box although coercive
measures in shape warrants of arrest were issued by Mr.
Amjad Nazir Chaudhry Learned ASJ.

6. That after 14 dates the petitioner filed an application u/s

265-K Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by Ch. Nazir
Ahmed Learned ASJ Rawalpindi vide impugned order
dated: 7.1.2013 which order was assailed before this
Honorable Court in Crl. Revision No. 17/2013 and His
Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar Ul Haq J. of this
Honorable Court vide order dated: 24.1.2013 was pleased
to observe as under;-

“2. In view of the above statement of the

Learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is
disposed f having not been pressed. However, the
learned trial court is directed to record statements
of Sardar and Mazhar Hayat PWs, maximum
 within a period of 45 days after the receipt of this
order, thereafter, petitioner is at liberty to repeated
his application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C and if
any such application is filed the learned trial
Judge shall decide the same expeditiously strictly
on merits in accordance with law keeping in view
the statements of the PWs referred above.

7. That after the above said order of this Honorable Court the
prosecution failed to produce the said witnesses hence on
19.1.2013 bailable warrants of PWs were issued but even
then the witnesses did not appear, then on 4.2.2013 non
bailable warrants of the witnesses were issued even then
they did not appear. Proceedings u/s 87 Cr.P.C. were also
resorted by the learned ASJ but no PW turned up.

8. That in the meanwhile complainant filed petitioner for

cancellation of bail of the petitioner which was accepted
which order was assailed by the petitioner before august
Supreme Court of Pakistan who vide order dated:
28.1.2014 set-aside the said order and bail of the petitioner
was restored and the petitioner put his appearance before
the learned trial court on 10.2.2014.

9. That thereafter a number of opportunities were given to

the prosecution to lead it’s evidence but it failed. Coercive
measures in shape of bail able and non bail able warrants
were also taken but of no avail. Ultimately proceedings u/s
 87 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 5.5.2014 but it also failed,
even complainant did not appear.

10. That the petitioner filed a petition u/s 265-K Cr.PC.

before the learned trial Judge who vide his order dated:
16.6.2014 instead of accepting the application and
acquitting the accused disposed of the application in a
very arbitrary, articles and whimsical manner while
consigning the file to record room hence this revision on
the following amongst other

GROUNDS

A. That the petitioner himself is complainant of case but later

on due to influence of actual culprits was made accused
whereas there is no material against the petitioner to
connect him with the alleged crime.
B. That while examining the deceased mother Mst. Asmat
Kazi her daughter the sister of the petitioner Tania Qazi
reported in CMH that their mother was living in the house
situated in Harley Street and was being looked after by
servant who informed her that some thief has entered into
their house, gave beatings to him and also injured the
deceased and bleeding in continued from the head of
deceased.
C. That the star witness namely Sardar Khan servant has
stated on 10.1.2012 in recovery memo that some unknow
person strangled him with rope and he became
 unconscious but later on 25.1.2012 he stated otherwise and
involved the petitioner in the alleged crime. This statement
was made on 25.1.2012 but back date of its’ recording was
shown as 9.1.2012 which creates serious doubt on the
veracity of the said witness.
D. That one Muhammad Iftikhar son of Sub Anwar Khan had
been working as servant in the house who came at about
3.O Clock, opened the door, found Sardar present in the
room in injured position and took him to hospital and
afterwards informed all the persons about the occurrence.
He has not been made witness by prosecution.
E. That the prosecution has been provided 16 opportunities to
lead its evidence but no one has so far appeared in witness
box in favour of prosecution, which entitles the petitioner
to acquittal.
F. That the respondent No.2 filed two private complaints
regarding the said occurrence u/s 302/34 PPC. First was
dismissed on 30.8.2012 from the court of Ch. Muhammad
Tariq Javed, Learned ASJ Rawalpindi and the other was
dismissed on 3.12.2012 by Mr. Amjad Nazir Learned ASJ,
Rawalpindi.
G. That the orders regarding dismissal of complaints of the
respondent No.2 by the Learned ASJ are still in tact and
have no been challenged by the respondent No.2 at any
forum, thus these have attained finality.
H. That after lapse of 16 opportunities the petitioner moved
an application u/s 265-K Cr.P.C. and while deciding the
application u/s 265-K Cr.P.C. the learned ASJ held:-
“Though there is no eye witness of the occurrence in
the instant case. It is a case of circumstantial
evidence.”
But even then did not accept the application of the
petitioner, thus committed an illegality and
irregularity.”

I. That after 14 dates the petitioner filed an application u/s

265-K Cr.p.C. which was been dismissed by Ch. Nazir
Ahmed Learned ASJ Rawalpindi vide impugned order
dated: 7.1.2013 which order was assailed before this
Honorable Court in Crl. Revision No. 17/2013 and His
Lordship Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar ul Haq J. of this
Honorable Court vide order dated: 24.1.2013 was pleased
to observe as under:-
“2. In view of the above statement of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of
having not been pressed. However, the learned trial
court is directed to record statements of Sardar and
Mazhar Hayat PWs, maximum within a period of 45
days after the receipt of this order, thereafter,
petitioner is at liberty to repeated his application
under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. and if any such
application is filed the learned trial Judge shall
 decide the same expeditiously strictly on merits in
accordance with law keeping in view the statements
of the PWs referred above.”

J. That after appearing once against before the trial court on

8.2.2014 a number of opportunities were given to the
prosecution to lead it’s evidence but it failed. Coercive
measures in shape of bail able and non bail able warrants
were also taken but of no avail. Ultimately proceedings u/s
87 Cr.p.C. were initiated on 5.5.2014 but it also failed,
even complainant did not appear and the petitioner filed
once again moved petition u/s 265-K Cr.P.C. after lapse of
45 days which has been wrongly decided by the learned
ASJ arbitrarily in a whimsical and flimsy manner and
instead of acquitting the petitioner file of the case was
consigned and flagrantly judgment of this Honorable
Court 1990 PCRLJ 555 was violated. In this judgment it
was held that the sessions court should not cine die
adjourn the case or for a long period.
K. That the order passed by the trial court is against law and
facts borne on the record. The impugned order passed by
the learned trial court is traveling on conjectures and
surmises instead of convincing material and plausible
reasons.
L. That from the material place on record no offence u/s 302
PPC or otherwise is constituted against he petitioner nor
there is any material against the petitioner to connect him
 with the alleged crime, therefore, mere pendency of the
proceedings will serve no useful purpose, rather it will be
wastage of precious time of the learned trial court.
M. That as stated above it is a case of no evidence and
mere facing the trial without any evidence against him, the
petitioner shall sustain mental agony and torture of false
prosecution, which will not serve any useful purpose at all.
N. That the so called supplementary statement of servant
Sardar of the alleged occurrence therefore, it has no value
in the eye of law.
O. That the impugned order is illegal, not sustainable and
result into grave miscarriage of justice.
P. That illegalities and irregularities have been committed by
the learned trial court.
Q. That the learned trial court failed to appraise the material
available on record in it’s true perspective.
R. That the learned trial court exercised the jurisdiction not
vested in it and did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in
it.
S. That the impugned order has been passed in a post haste
and arbitrary manner, thus is not sustainable in they eye of
law.
T. That the learned trial court did not view the case from it’s
right angle and reached a wrong conclusion.
U. That come what may the impugned order dated: 7.1.2013
is illegal, null, void, without lawful authority, corrum non
judice and is liable to be set-aside.
 11. That the above captioned case is pending in this
Honorable court and are fixed for today.

12. That material witnesses i.e. complainant and Doctor

have been examined by this Honorable court,but none of
them support the prosecution version at all.

13. That no offence as alleged is made out against the

petitioner.

4. That there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner at

all, even if the remaining evidence is recorded.

5. That mere pendency of the case will serve no useful

purpose, except that it will be the wastage of precious time
of this Honorable court.

6. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case

with malafides and ulterior motives. He is innocent and
has nothing to do with the alleged crime.

7. That court may acquit the accused at any stage of the case,
not withstanding the fact that some more evidence in the
case was yet to be recorded.
8. That mere fact that most of the prosecution witnesses in
the case have been examined or that the trial is about to
conclude cannot be made a ground for dismissal of an
application.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, prayed this application may be accepted

and the petitioners/ accused may kindly be acquitted.

This will meet the ends of justice.

Petitioners/ accused

Through

Raja Rashid Iqbal Satti

Advocate, High Court,

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.

List of Books;
12.PLJ 1988 Tr.C (Lah) 32
 13.PCRLJ 1992 1641 Kar.

IN THE COURT OF MR. ASIF MAJEED AWAN JUDGE

ATC- II RAWALPINDI.

1. Raja Waheed Mehfooz

2. Raja Nasir Mehfooz sons of Raja Mehfooz
3. Raja Yasir Khan son of Muhammad Khan
4. Naeem Abbasi son of Ahtibar Abbasi
5. Allah Ditta Abbasi son of Muhammad Banaras
6. Qaiser Abbas Abbasi alias Qaiser Mushtaq son of Raja
Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi
7. Ali Usman son of Muhammad Usman
8. Moeen Ishfaq son of Ishfaq Abbasi
9. Abid Mehmood alias Abdul Wali Khan Walia son of
Muhammad Aslam
10. Muhammad Awais Tariq Butt son of Muhammad Tariq
Sharif Butt.
All residents of Shamsabad, Dhoke Kala Khan, Murree Road,
Rawalpindi

Petitioners

State Vs. Raja Waheed Mehfooz etc

Case FIR No.1038 dated: 10.11.2015

Offence u/s 324, 353, 186, 224, 225, 341, 148, 149 PPC
r/w 7-ATA.
P.S. Sadiqabad, Rawalpindi.

APPLICATION U/S 265-K CR.P.C.

Respectfully sheweth:-

14. That the above captioned case is pending in this

Honorable court and are fixed for today.
15. That brief facts of the case that on the complaint of one
Abdul Majeed SI P.S. Sadiqbad Rawalpindi above mentioned
case has been registered against the petitioners in which he
stated that on 10.11.2015 he alongwith other police official
upon on official vehicle were present at Taj Mahal Plaza
Murree Road Rawalpindi in the mean time one Ghulam Khan
son of Khan Zadeen resident of Mehmad Agency presently
Glass Factory Rawalpindi injured condition appeared before
him and said that in Car No. 444 one Raja Waheed Mehfooz,
Nasir Mehfooz, Awais Butt and Raja Yasir Khan stopped their
vehicle in front of his Ruksha No. RL-264 and after deboning
put up their pistol and Raja Waheed Mehfooz said that he will
be get lesson to stop their way and stately fired upon him
which was landed on his right foot thereafter all persons made
aerial firing due to which and a lady namely Abida was also
injured and Waheed Mehfooz etc are going may pleased to
arrested upon which Raja Waheed Mehfooz were chased and
were apprehended upon which Raja Waheed Mehfooz made
alarm that police be teach a lesson to apprehend him upon
which all above 5/6 unknown persons armed with pistol came
their and whiling blocking the Murree Road create terrarisum
and got of Raja Waheed Mehfooz and made slogans and fled
away, hence the above said FIR.

16. That FIR is totally baseless, no such occurrence ever

took placed and petitioners and petitioner have been involved
in the instant false and frivolous case due to political enmities.

17. That as per FIR one Ghulam Muhammad informed to

the complainant of FIR about occurrence but he has not been
made complainant of the case.

18. That the above Ghulam Muhammad made statement

under section 164 Cr.P.C. and also appeared before this
Honorable Court and got recorded his statement that some
unknown persons injured him and the petitioners have been
nominated by the police themselves, he never nominated the
petitioners which statement made the prosecution case highly
doubtful.

19. That other injured of the FIR namely Mst. Abida Bibi
also made statement under section 164 Cr.PC and she also
 appeared before the Honorable Lahore High Court Rawalpindi
Bench Rawalpindi and she categorically stated that the
petitioners are not her accused.

20. That the police is inimical to the petitioners they

nominated the petitioners in the above said false and frivolous
FIR on the asking of political opponents of petitioners which
fact is evident from this that when petitioners Raja Waheed
Mehfooz, Raja Nasir Mehfooz and Yasir Khan were produced
before this Honorable Court to get physical remand did not
mentioned that above said Ghulam Muhammad has already
made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the
competent Magistrate in which he already stated that Raja
Waheed Mehfooz, Raja Nasir Mehfooz and Yasir Khan etc are
not his accused neither he nominated them nor he want to
prosecute against them and police by themselves nominated
them in the instant case and police got 15 days phsycal remand
upon which peitioenr moved writ petition No. 3625/2015 titled
as Raja Waheed Mehfooz Vs. Special Judge ATC-II and 2
others in which petitioners challenged physical remand in
which on 21.12.2015 Honorable Division Bench of Lahore
High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi asked the SHO P.S.
Sadiqabad to produce the petitioners alongwith statement of
Ghulam Muhammad got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C in
the court of same day where SHO conceded that above said
Ghulam Muhammad already got recorded u/s 164 Cr.p.C. but
this fact has not been mentioned by Police in Police Case
dairies which think is more then sufficient that police is
inimical to the petitioners and police is playing in the hands of
political opponents of the petitioners, further more in the
above said Writ Petition other injured Mst. Abida Bibi also
appeared before the Honorable Division Bench of Lahore
High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi where she also
disowned the allegations against the petitioner and other
accused persons which fact also created serious dent in the
prosecution case and case against the petitioner could not be
continue and Honorable Lahore High Court while accepting
the writ petition of the petitioners and declared remand of the
petitioners as invalid remand and the above mentioned three
petitioners were granted post arrest interim protective bail
which bail was confirmed by this Honorable Court.
 21. That the base of the above mentioned FIR is that one
Ghulam Muhammad informed the police about injuring
himself is not more in field hence FIR cannot be further
proceeded as base is not available to prosecution, hence
arresting of Raja Waheed Mehfooz petitioner etc by police and
his illegal release from the clutches of police by the other
petitioners is highly doubt and is not believable story hence
petitioners are liable to be acquitted from the above mentioned
FIR.

22. That no offence as alleged is made out against the

petitioners.

4. That there is no chance of conviction of the petitioners at all in

the FIR.

5. That mere pendency of the case will serve no useful purpose,

except that it will be the wastage of precious time of this
Honorable court.

6. That the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case

with malafides and ulterior motives. They are innocent and
have nothing to do with the alleged crime.

7. That court may acquit the accused at any stage of the case.

PRAYER:-

It is, therefore, prayed this application may be accepted and in

the interest of justice the petitioners/ accused may kindly be
acquitted.

Petitioners/ accused

Through

Khaliq Hussain Bhatti

Advocate, High Court,

Muhammad Ajaib
 Advocate High Court

Certified as per instructions that this is the first application in this

honorable court on the subject matter.

Advocate.