2007 PLP 1028 (YLR)
Mst. ZAHIDA SHER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NEW MULTAN and another-Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1028 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZAHIDA SHER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NEW MULTAN and another-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1028 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1028 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1028 (YLR) (Mst. ZAHIDA SHER — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION NEW MULTAN and another-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Jahanzaib Khan for Petitioner.
- Sh. Faizan Ahmad for Respondent No.2.
- 3. Today, the minors have been produced by respondent No.2. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the minors were taken by the respondent from the school as they are not properly looked after by the petitioner and it was alone in the welfare of the minors. Further contends that the minors may be handed over to the petitioner but respondent No.2 be allowed to approach the Guardian Judge for the custody of the minors.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Scope of S.491, Cr.P.C.-Minors who were in the legal custody of petitioner, having been removed by respondent forcibly, petitioner, moved petition under S. 491, Cr. P. C. before Sessions Judge with the prayer to recover the minors from respondent and be handed over to her
Proper forum to determine question of custody of minors was the Guardian Court under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Section 491, Cr.P.C. was not meant to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court or in any manner to substitute the proceedings to be conducted by the Guardian Judge
Order under S.491. Cr.P.C. was tentative in nature as a stop gap arrangement subject to final determination by the Guardian Judge
Minors were ordered to be handed over to petitioner; respondent however, could approach the Guardian Judge for redressal of his grievance under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Mubashar Latif Gill, A.A.-G. along with Muhammad Afzal S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
The minors namely Iqra Rubab and Saqlain Abbas, who were in the legal custody of the petitioner, were removed by respondent No.2 forcibly. The petitioner moved petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Multan on 4-1-2006 with the prayer to recover the minors from respondent No.2 and be handed over to her.
2. Vide order dated 14-2-2006, respondent No.2 was directed to produce the minors on 20-2-2006. On 20-2-2006, S.H.O. stated that respondent No.2 was not traced out and sought time to recover the minors. The case was adjourned to 23-2-2006 and on the said date, respondent No.2 appeared but the minors were not brought by him. He was again directed to produce the minors for today i.e. 24-2-2006.
3. Today, the minors have been produced by respondent No.2. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the minors were taken by the respondent from the school as they are not properly looked after by the petitioner and it was alone in the welfare of the minors. Further contends that the minors may be handed over to the petitioner but respondent No.2 be allowed to approach the Guardian Judge for the custody of the minors.
4. Admittedly, the proper forum to determine the question of custody of the minors is the Guardian Court, established under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 491, Cr.P.C. is not meant to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court or in any manner to substitute the proceedings to be conducted by the Guardian Judge. The order under section 491, Cr.P.C. is tentative in nature as a stop gape arrangement subject to final determination by the Guardian Judge.
5. In this view of the matter, the minors are handed over to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 can approach the Guardian Judge for redressal of his grievance under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Disposed of with the above observation. H.B.T./Z-55/L Order accordingly.