Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 1329
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Misc. 684/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Zahur (Applicant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 1329. In this matter between Cr.Misc. 684/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Zahur (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Misc. 684/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2024 SHC HYD 1329 PARTIES: Zahur (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 21-OCT-24 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.
Cr. Misc. A. No. S — 684 of 2024
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
21.10.2024. FOR ORDERS ON M.A. 10862/2024. FOR ORDERS ON OFFICE OBJECTION. FOR ORDERS ON M.A. 10863/2024. FOR HEARING OF MAIN CASE. FOR HEARING OF M.A. 10864/2024.
Mr. Abdul Rehman Raza Abbassi Advocate for Applicant. -----
The Applicant has preferred this Application under Section 561-A Cr.PC, impugning the Order made on 30.09.2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Badin, allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1403 of 2024 filed by the Respondent No.3 under Section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. so as to direct the concerned S.H.O. to record his Statemen t regarding the dishonor of a cheque issued by the Applicant and then proceed as per law.
Whilst one of the grounds raised is that the impugned Order has been passed in a hasty manner, without affording an opportunity of hearing, a perusal thereof reflects that the same was made after notice to Applicant and hearing his counsel. Whilst it has also been argued today that no evidence w as produced by the Respondent No.3 of an agreement regarding the business relations said to exist between the parties, it falls to be considered that the Application at hand is bereft of any denial as to the issuance and dishon or of the cheque. As such, there is no discernible error warranting interference at this stage and the present Application stands dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
A.