Saturday, 11 February 2017
قنون کی باتیں ... سامان جہیز .. کچھ ضروری باتیں
قنون کی باتیں ... سامان جہیز .. کچھ ضروری باتیں ..عام طور پر لوگ اپنی بیٹیوں کو انکی شادی پر لاکھوں کا سامان جہیز دیتے ہے مگر ااگر بعد مے طلاق یا جھگڑا ہو جائے تو وہ جہیز کے حصول کا جب کیس کرتے ہے تو اکثر لڑکے والے کورٹ مے جہیز سے مکر جاتے ہے ..سو ایسی صورت میں جہیز ثابت کرنا بڑا مسلا بن جاتا ہے ..سو یہ چاہے کے جب بیٹی کو رخصت کرے تو کوشش کرے کے سامان جہیز کی فهرست پر لڑکے والو ن کےدستخط کروا لیے جائیں ..یہ ممکن نہ ہو تو کسی موبائل سے سامان جہیز جانے کی ویڈیو بنا لی جائے .. اسی طرح یہ بھی دیکھنے مے آیا ہے کے طلاق وغیرہ کی صورت مے کچھ لڑکے والے پنچایتی طور پی خود ہی سامان جہیز لڑکی والوں کو دے دیتے ہے ..اس بابت یا تو لڑکی والو سے کوئی سامان وصول کرنے کی کوئی تحریر لیتے ہی نہی یا پھر لڑکی کے بھایوں وغیرہ سے رسید لے لیتے ہیں ..یہ بھی ٹھیک نہی ..سال 2006 اور سال 2016 میں سپریم کورٹ نے بھایوں کے سامان جہیز وصولی کی رسید کے باوجود خاتون کا سامان جہیز کا کیس ڈگری کر دیا اورقرار دیا کے بھایوں کے پاس سامان وصول کرنے کا بہن کی طرف سے کوئی اختیار نہی تھا ..سو لڑکے والو کو بھی چاہے کے اگر وہ سامان جہیز دینا بھی چاہتے ہیں تو پنچایتی طور پی ہر گز نہ دے ..بلکے لڑکی والوں سے کہیں کہ وہ فیملی کورٹ مے سامان جہیز کی وصولی کا کیس کریں ..پھر اس کیس مے راضی نامہ کی درخواست دے کر بذریہ کورٹ سامان لڑکی والوں کے حوالے کرے اور اس بابت لڑکی کا بیان کورٹ میں کروایں ...جس کی تصدیق اس کا وکیل کرے گا .اس طرح لڑکے والے بھی مستقبل میں محفوظ ہونگے
Facebook ID was Hacked ....FIR lodged
Facebook ID was Hacked ....FIR lodged Under Section 36/37 Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 Read With Section 420 of Pakistan Penal Code ...Accused Bail Refused.
Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ Page 1916
(November Journal)
S. 497---Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss. 36 & 37---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 109
Hacking social media account belonging to someone else and abusing personal information---Bail, refusal of---Accused was nominated in the FIR and had been ascribed with a specific role of hacking facebook ID of the complainant and misusing the same for uploading her personal pictures on internet without her permission---During the course of investigation, accused had been found guilty of the offence alleged against him---Offence alleged against the accused was heinous in nature as it ruined the entire life of the victim as being disgraced in the eyes of general public and her family---Sufficient evidence was available on record which was not only threatening but obnoxious and filthy in nature and prima facie connected the accused with the commission of the alleged offence--- High Court observed that such offences damaged the fibre of the society and were liable to be curbed very strongly by the law enforcing agencies---Accused was refused bail accordingly.
Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ Page 1916
(November Journal)
S. 497---Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss. 36 & 37---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 109
Hacking social media account belonging to someone else and abusing personal information---Bail, refusal of---Accused was nominated in the FIR and had been ascribed with a specific role of hacking facebook ID of the complainant and misusing the same for uploading her personal pictures on internet without her permission---During the course of investigation, accused had been found guilty of the offence alleged against him---Offence alleged against the accused was heinous in nature as it ruined the entire life of the victim as being disgraced in the eyes of general public and her family---Sufficient evidence was available on record which was not only threatening but obnoxious and filthy in nature and prima facie connected the accused with the commission of the alleged offence--- High Court observed that such offences damaged the fibre of the society and were liable to be curbed very strongly by the law enforcing agencies---Accused was refused bail accordingly.
Some Important Documents of Criminal Case File:
Some Important Documents of Criminal Case File:
1. "FARAD BAYAN"
It is statement recorded by police officer for registration of FIR. Complainant records his statement to police who writes it and reads over to complainant and then it is signed or thumb marked by the complainant.FIR is exact duplication of farad bayan.
This is exhibited during examination in chief of Complainant.
2. FIR (FIRST INFORMATION REPORT )
It is registered under section 154 CrPC.
It is registered when any cognizable offence is committed.
It must be read over to complainant if informant gives oral statement.
It must be signed/thumb marked by complainant.
Any one can lodge FIR who has information of crime. This is fundamental document on basis of which criminal machinery comes into motion. However during trial content of FIR must be proved by evidence. It is not substantive piece of evidence.
3. NAKSHA MOOKA
It is site plan of place of occurrence prepared by investigating officer and it describes important landmarks of crime scene and presence of witnesses and accused.It is unscaled.
In henious offences it is prepared by patwari or naksha nawees which is scaled site plan.
4. ZIMNIES
Are proceedings of police case diaries prepared under section 172 CrPC.
5. FARAD MAKBOOZGEE
It is recovery memo.
Anything found at crime scene or recovered at instance of disclosure of accused is to be taken into possession in presence of witnesses and record of these proceedings
is called recovery memo.
Fard makboozgee must describe FIR No, offence, police station, description of property, place where property was found and name and signature of attesting witnesses.
Section 103 CrPC describes procedure for recovery at instance of accused. However S. 103 CrPC is not applicable to Narcotics.
This is not exhaustive list but is description of few docouments.
1. "FARAD BAYAN"
It is statement recorded by police officer for registration of FIR. Complainant records his statement to police who writes it and reads over to complainant and then it is signed or thumb marked by the complainant.FIR is exact duplication of farad bayan.
This is exhibited during examination in chief of Complainant.
2. FIR (FIRST INFORMATION REPORT )
It is registered under section 154 CrPC.
It is registered when any cognizable offence is committed.
It must be read over to complainant if informant gives oral statement.
It must be signed/thumb marked by complainant.
Any one can lodge FIR who has information of crime. This is fundamental document on basis of which criminal machinery comes into motion. However during trial content of FIR must be proved by evidence. It is not substantive piece of evidence.
3. NAKSHA MOOKA
It is site plan of place of occurrence prepared by investigating officer and it describes important landmarks of crime scene and presence of witnesses and accused.It is unscaled.
In henious offences it is prepared by patwari or naksha nawees which is scaled site plan.
4. ZIMNIES
Are proceedings of police case diaries prepared under section 172 CrPC.
5. FARAD MAKBOOZGEE
It is recovery memo.
Anything found at crime scene or recovered at instance of disclosure of accused is to be taken into possession in presence of witnesses and record of these proceedings
is called recovery memo.
Fard makboozgee must describe FIR No, offence, police station, description of property, place where property was found and name and signature of attesting witnesses.
Section 103 CrPC describes procedure for recovery at instance of accused. However S. 103 CrPC is not applicable to Narcotics.
This is not exhaustive list but is description of few docouments.
Talaq ka ail important aspect..
کورٹ کی طرف سے تنسیخ نکاح کی ڈگری کی حثیت صرف ایک طلاق کی ھوتی ھے. لہذا ایک طلاق کے بعد شوہر کے پاس رجوع کرنے کا شرعی حق موجود ھے .اس لیے ایک طلاق ھونے کی صورت میں حلالہ کی ضرورت شرعی نقطہ نظر سے نہی ھوتی ھے.بشرطیکہ 90 دن یعنی تین طہر نہ گزرنے پاے ھوں.
حلالہ کی ضرورت تین طلاق یعنی طلاق ثلاثہ کے بعد پیش آتی ھے.
حلالہ کی ضرورت تین طلاق یعنی طلاق ثلاثہ کے بعد پیش آتی ھے.
Qanoon ki batein..
.سوال ........ اگر کوئی خاتون فیملی کورٹ سے تنسیخ نکاح کی ڈگری حاصل کرتی ہے ..مگر بعد اس کو احساس ہوتا ہے کے اسکا فیصلہ غلط تھا اور وہ دوبارہ شوہر کے ساتھ آباد ہونا چاہتی ہے تو کیا اس کے لیے اسے ہلا لہ کرنے کی ضرورت ہوگی ..
جواب ...
میرے مشاھدے میں یہ بات آی ھے کہ تنسیخ نکاح کی ڈگری لینے والی خواتین میں پچاس فیصد وھ خواتین ھوتی ھیں جو واقعی اپنے شوھر یا سسرال کے رویہ سے پریشان ھوتی ھیں مگر پچاس فیصد وھ خواتین ھوتی ھیں جو کسی شخص کے بہکاوے میں آکر شوھر سے طلاق لے لیتی ھیں کیونکہ اس شخص نے اس سے شادی کا وعدا کیا ھوتا ھے.مگر اکثر دیکھا گیا ھے کہ ایسے دوست خاتون کی پہلے شوھر سے تنسیخ کے بعد خاتون سے شادی کرنے سے مکر جاتے ھیں یوں وھ خاتون کسی کے بہکاوے میں آکر شوھر بھی کھو بیٹھتی ھے اور بند گلی.میں پہنچ جاتی ھے.اکثر پہلا شوھر اس کو اپنانے کو تیار ھوتا ھے مگر ان کے زھن میں ھوتا ھے کہ کیونکہ تنسیخ ھوچکی ھے اس لیے حلالہ کرنا پڑے گا..جو کہ غلط تصور ھوتا ھے.قراں پاک میں حلالہ.شوھر کی طلاق پر ھوتا ھے.فیملی کورٹ صرف نکاح کو منسوخ کرسکتی ھے.عورت کو طلاق دینے کا اختیار صرف شوھر کے پاس ھے.چنانچہ اگر شوھر نے طلاق نہھی دی.کورٹ نے صرف ڈگری دی ھے تو اسی شوھر سے دبارا نکاح ھوسکتا ھے.حلالہ کی ضرورت نہ ھے.اس اھم قانونی نقطہ پر آعلی عدالتی نظایر بھی موجود ھیں..ملاحظہ ھو..
Pld 2013 lah page 88
جواب ...
میرے مشاھدے میں یہ بات آی ھے کہ تنسیخ نکاح کی ڈگری لینے والی خواتین میں پچاس فیصد وھ خواتین ھوتی ھیں جو واقعی اپنے شوھر یا سسرال کے رویہ سے پریشان ھوتی ھیں مگر پچاس فیصد وھ خواتین ھوتی ھیں جو کسی شخص کے بہکاوے میں آکر شوھر سے طلاق لے لیتی ھیں کیونکہ اس شخص نے اس سے شادی کا وعدا کیا ھوتا ھے.مگر اکثر دیکھا گیا ھے کہ ایسے دوست خاتون کی پہلے شوھر سے تنسیخ کے بعد خاتون سے شادی کرنے سے مکر جاتے ھیں یوں وھ خاتون کسی کے بہکاوے میں آکر شوھر بھی کھو بیٹھتی ھے اور بند گلی.میں پہنچ جاتی ھے.اکثر پہلا شوھر اس کو اپنانے کو تیار ھوتا ھے مگر ان کے زھن میں ھوتا ھے کہ کیونکہ تنسیخ ھوچکی ھے اس لیے حلالہ کرنا پڑے گا..جو کہ غلط تصور ھوتا ھے.قراں پاک میں حلالہ.شوھر کی طلاق پر ھوتا ھے.فیملی کورٹ صرف نکاح کو منسوخ کرسکتی ھے.عورت کو طلاق دینے کا اختیار صرف شوھر کے پاس ھے.چنانچہ اگر شوھر نے طلاق نہھی دی.کورٹ نے صرف ڈگری دی ھے تو اسی شوھر سے دبارا نکاح ھوسکتا ھے.حلالہ کی ضرورت نہ ھے.اس اھم قانونی نقطہ پر آعلی عدالتی نظایر بھی موجود ھیں..ملاحظہ ھو..
Pld 2013 lah page 88
Pld 2014 fsc page 43
Joint Holdings...
JOINT HOLDINGS.
2016 CLC 550 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB
Ss. 135, 145 & 164---partition of joint holding ---On application for partition of joint holding , Naib Tehsildar, divided said holding in four Wandajat, which were accepted by Revenue of ficer Halqa/AC---Under S.145 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, Instrument of partition (Sanad Taqseem) was also issued---No body having challenged said Wandajat, same had attained finality---Additional Commissioner, allowed respondent to choose his wanda, and ordered that other co-sharers, if aggrieved, could apply for partition and that wanda chosen by the respondent would remain intact---Validity---Additional Commissioner had not taken care of the rights of other co-sharers while passing the impugned order---Additional Commissioner had placed 51 Kanals, 8 Marlas land of respondent in one basket and all other co-sharers in the second basket---No justification existed to allow respondent to choose land of his choice out of total holding measuring 160 Kanals, 1 Marla---Additional Commissioner had made error in judgment and by doing so awarded relief, which was not even claimed by respondent---Additional Commissioner, had misused his authority and did not apply judicial mind---Such an order could not be allowed to be maintained, because it smacked fishy---Accepting petition, impugned order of Additional Commissioner, was set aside; in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 1617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 2(e), 15 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment petition---joint property owned by four owners---Portion of joint property in possession of tenant under rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 became property of landlord through partition decree passed in August, 2001---Grounds for eviction were default in payment of rent by tenant; bona fide personal need of premises by landlord; and expiry of term of 11 months of oral rent agreement in December, 2008---Tenant's plea in leave application that he had paid Rs. 40,000 as Pagri to co-owners under rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 and had not violated terms of tenancy agreement---Dismissal of leave application and acceptance of ejectment petition by Rent Tribunal upheld by Appellate Authority---Validity---Rent Tribunal while holding that tenancy between parties was regulated by rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 had erred in law by substituting landlord's plea, which was to the effect that after partition of joint property, he became owner of rented premises and he entered into oral tenancy agreement with tenant for 11 months---Pagri amount paid by tenant to joint owners was part of rent agreement dated 5-12-1982, but ejectment petition did not explain that who out of 4 joint owners became beneficiary thereof after partition of joint property---Rent Tribunal had failed to decide fate of Pagri amount, though he was legally bound to decide whether same was returnable to tenant or not at time of vacation of premises; and that who was responsible for its return---Rent Tribunal while deciding fate of "Pagri" would be liable to consider question as to whether its original amount was returnable or with addition of devaluation of currency as tenant was enhancing rent according to law---High Court set aside impugned judgments, granted leave application and remanded ejectment petition to Rent Tribunal for its decision after recording evidence of parties.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 536 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
O. VII, R. 11 & S.141---Suit for possession through partition ---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contention of defendants was that plaint did not disclose cause of action---Application for rejection of plaint was accepted concurrently---Validity---Only contents of plaint were to be considered while invoking provisions of O.VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. wherein cause of action was disclosed---Plaintiffs had a right to have a fair trial by producing evidence and to have a judicial opinion of the court on merits of case-
Ss. 135, 145 & 164---partition of joint holding ---On application for partition of joint holding , Naib Tehsildar, divided said holding in four Wandajat, which were accepted by Revenue of ficer Halqa/AC---Under S.145 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, Instrument of partition (Sanad Taqseem) was also issued---No body having challenged said Wandajat, same had attained finality---Additional Commissioner, allowed respondent to choose his wanda, and ordered that other co-sharers, if aggrieved, could apply for partition and that wanda chosen by the respondent would remain intact---Validity---Additional Commissioner had not taken care of the rights of other co-sharers while passing the impugned order---Additional Commissioner had placed 51 Kanals, 8 Marlas land of respondent in one basket and all other co-sharers in the second basket---No justification existed to allow respondent to choose land of his choice out of total holding measuring 160 Kanals, 1 Marla---Additional Commissioner had made error in judgment and by doing so awarded relief, which was not even claimed by respondent---Additional Commissioner, had misused his authority and did not apply judicial mind---Such an order could not be allowed to be maintained, because it smacked fishy---Accepting petition, impugned order of Additional Commissioner, was set aside; in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 1617 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 2(e), 15 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment petition---joint property owned by four owners---Portion of joint property in possession of tenant under rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 became property of landlord through partition decree passed in August, 2001---Grounds for eviction were default in payment of rent by tenant; bona fide personal need of premises by landlord; and expiry of term of 11 months of oral rent agreement in December, 2008---Tenant's plea in leave application that he had paid Rs. 40,000 as Pagri to co-owners under rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 and had not violated terms of tenancy agreement---Dismissal of leave application and acceptance of ejectment petition by Rent Tribunal upheld by Appellate Authority---Validity---Rent Tribunal while holding that tenancy between parties was regulated by rent agreement dated 5-12-1982 had erred in law by substituting landlord's plea, which was to the effect that after partition of joint property, he became owner of rented premises and he entered into oral tenancy agreement with tenant for 11 months---Pagri amount paid by tenant to joint owners was part of rent agreement dated 5-12-1982, but ejectment petition did not explain that who out of 4 joint owners became beneficiary thereof after partition of joint property---Rent Tribunal had failed to decide fate of Pagri amount, though he was legally bound to decide whether same was returnable to tenant or not at time of vacation of premises; and that who was responsible for its return---Rent Tribunal while deciding fate of "Pagri" would be liable to consider question as to whether its original amount was returnable or with addition of devaluation of currency as tenant was enhancing rent according to law---High Court set aside impugned judgments, granted leave application and remanded ejectment petition to Rent Tribunal for its decision after recording evidence of parties.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 536 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
O. VII, R. 11 & S.141---Suit for possession through partition ---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contention of defendants was that plaint did not disclose cause of action---Application for rejection of plaint was accepted concurrently---Validity---Only contents of plaint were to be considered while invoking provisions of O.VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. wherein cause of action was disclosed---Plaintiffs had a right to have a fair trial by producing evidence and to have a judicial opinion of the court on merits of case-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)