2005 PLP 1023 (YLR)
Mst. FARZANA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, DARYA KHAN DISTRICT BHAKKAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1023 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | Mst. FARZANA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, DARYA KHAN DISTRICT BHAKKAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1023 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1023 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1023 (YLR) (Mst. FARZANA — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, DARYA KHAN DISTRICT BHAKKAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Accused being sui juris had contracted marriage of her free-will and her husband was also present in the Court
Respondents having been distressed by her independent choice were using police authorities to exert pressure on the accused to abandon her marriage
Police Officer could not use his authority as instrument in affecting the course of private disputes falling outside any registered criminal case or investigation in his record
Present case involved a civil dispute
Police officer was, therefore, directed not to harass the accused illegally if they were not required for investigation in any criminal case
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Nasim Ullah Khan Niazi along with couple.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is sui juris and has contracted marriage of her free-will and consent with her husband. Muhammad Waris who is present in Court. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 are stated to be distressed by her independent choice and are using police authorities to exert pressure upon the petitioner to abandon her marriage. Learned counsel contends that such action tantamounts to illegal harassment.
2. The respondent No.1 Police Officer exercises his powers and functions under the law. He cannot use his authority as instrument in affecting the course of private disputes that are outside any registered criminal case or investigation in his record. The present case on the other hand involves a civil dispute. It is accordingly directed that if the petitioner and her husband are not required for investigation in any criminal case then respondent No.1 shall not illegally harass them.
3. With the foregoing directions, the writ petition is disposed of. N.H.Q./F-80/L Order accordingly.