AGL40.01▼ -0.01 (0.00%)AIRLINK187.98▲ 9.91 (0.06%)BOP10.12▲ 0.16 (0.02%)CNERGY7.11▲ 0.17 (0.02%)DCL10.15▲ 0.06 (0.01%)DFML41.57▲ 0 (0.00%)DGKC107.91▲ 1.02 (0.01%)FCCL39▼ -0.03 (0.00%)FFBL82.02▲ 0.13 (0.00%)FFL14.9▲ 1.2 (0.09%)HUBC119.46▲ 0.21 (0.00%)HUMNL14.05▲ 0.05 (0.00%)KEL6.4▲ 0.49 (0.08%)KOSM8.07▲ 0.01 (0.00%)MLCF49.47▲ 1.37 (0.03%)NBP73.66▲ 0.83 (0.01%)OGDC204.85▲ 11.09 (0.06%)PAEL33.56▲ 1.41 (0.04%)PIBTL8.07▲ 0.05 (0.01%)PPL185.41▲ 11.34 (0.07%)PRL33.61▲ 1.01 (0.03%)PTC27.39▲ 2.12 (0.08%)SEARL119.82▼ -5.14 (-0.04%)TELE9.69▲ 0.27 (0.03%)TOMCL35.3▼ -0.09 (0.00%)TPLP12.25▲ 0.63 (0.05%)TREET20.26▲ 1.84 (0.10%)TRG60.78▲ 0.29 (0.00%)UNITY37.99▼ -0.22 (-0.01%)WTL1.65▼ -0.01 (-0.01%)

LHC fines citizen for filing fake petition

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]
AMRAIZ KHAN

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday fined a person Rs.300,000 for filing a false petition for the recovery of his son.

Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan issued a detailed 15-page judgment on Muhammad Ramzan’s petition that had approached the LHC for the recovery of his son Muhammad Asad. Raja Rafaqat Ali Advocate appeared before the court on behalf of the accused – Asghar Ali and Yasmin.

“There are at least 22 other petitions of these types, filed by the same petitioner, pending in the LHC. One of his petitions for the recovery of his son Muhammad Asad has already proved to be false,” the lawyer for the accused told the court. “According to an inquiry report, the petitioner is not a married person, and he has no son. In 2010, the apex court had ordered the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs3,000 and the police to register a case against him. There are over 16 cases registered against the petitioner,” the lawyer further informed the court. “The Jhang district police officer (DPO) held an inquiry for the recovery of the petitioner’s son. In the inquiry report, the incident of the petitioner’s marriage and the disappearance of his son were declared baseless,” the lawyer told the court about the inquiry report against the petitioner. “If the application is baseless, it is rejected and the applicant is fined Rs300,000,” the court pronounced the verdict.

The court verdict was declared a judicial precedent.

 

Related Posts

Get Alerts