AIRLINK 155.95 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (0.37%)
BOP 9.93 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (2.48%)
CNERGY 7.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.27%)
CPHL 83.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-0.68%)
FCCL 43.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.78%)
FFL 14.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.81%)
FLYNG 31.31 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (3.3%)
HUBC 134.70 Decreased By ▼ -1.54 (-1.13%)
HUMNL 12.86 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.8%)
KEL 4.04 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 68.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.34 (-1.93%)
OGDC 199.80 Decreased By ▼ -3.45 (-1.7%)
PACE 5.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.4%)
PAEL 42.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-0.87%)
PIAHCLA 16.95 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (2.29%)
PIBTL 8.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.46%)
POWER 14.05 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.86%)
PPL 147.47 Decreased By ▼ -3.36 (-2.23%)
PRL 28.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-1.25%)
PTC 20.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.68%)
SEARL 83.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.74 (-0.88%)
SSGC 40.75 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (1.24%)
SYM 15.20 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (2.49%)
TELE 6.99 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.14%)
TPLP 8.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.6%)
TRG 63.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.23%)
WAVESAPP 8.66 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.05%)
WTL 1.33 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (4.72%)
YOUW 3.48 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.75%)
AIRLINK 155.95 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (0.37%)
BOP 9.93 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (2.48%)
CNERGY 7.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.27%)
CPHL 83.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-0.68%)
FCCL 43.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.78%)
FFL 14.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.81%)
FLYNG 31.31 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (3.3%)
HUBC 134.70 Decreased By ▼ -1.54 (-1.13%)
HUMNL 12.86 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (2.8%)
KEL 4.04 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.5%)
KOSM 5.02 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 68.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.34 (-1.93%)
OGDC 199.80 Decreased By ▼ -3.45 (-1.7%)
PACE 5.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.4%)
PAEL 42.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-0.87%)
PIAHCLA 16.95 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (2.29%)
PIBTL 8.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.46%)
POWER 14.05 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.86%)
PPL 147.47 Decreased By ▼ -3.36 (-2.23%)
PRL 28.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-1.25%)
PTC 20.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.68%)
SEARL 83.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.74 (-0.88%)
SSGC 40.75 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (1.24%)
SYM 15.20 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (2.49%)
TELE 6.99 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.14%)
TPLP 8.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.6%)
TRG 63.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.23%)
WAVESAPP 8.66 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.05%)
WTL 1.33 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (4.72%)
YOUW 3.48 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.75%)
BR100 12,055 Decreased By -105.1 (-0.86%)
BR30 35,077 Decreased By -279.8 (-0.79%)
KSE100 113,473 Decreased By -640.6 (-0.56%)
KSE30 34,606 Decreased By -311.7 (-0.89%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a compromise made under custom of vani is illegal and hence heirs of victim/ deceased could not sue the rival party for criminal prosecution if it violates such an agreement.

The court allowed a petition of one Nawaz who was asked by a panchayat (a council of elders) to give hand of his daughter to victim party and pay Rs1 million as penalty, and set aside the order of an additional district and sessions judge asking the police to register a criminal case against Nawaz for violating the compromise agreement.

The court observed that the impugned order passed by the judge for registration of case against the petitioner was given in a slipshod manner without considering the facts of the case.

The court also observed that under Section 24 of the Contract Act, 1872, the cheque issued under custom of vani is also void because of unlawful consideration.

According to the details, an FIR was registered against Nawaz, son of Mahna, at Bhowana police station for killing one Faraz.

Nawaz was arrested and his family approached the elders of village and convened a panchayat which decided that Nawaz would give the hand of his daughter in marriage to the victim party and in the event of default he would pay them Rs1 million as penalty.

Nawaz, subsequently, refused to marry off his daughter as per settlement and the cheque issued in this regard also bounced.

The deceased brother moved an application before the ex-officio Justice of Peace, Bhowana, contending that the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted for issuing a cheque dishonestly.

The judge accepted the application and passed the orders accordingly. The petitioner challenged the said orders and got relief.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed.