2006 PLP 2943 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-5-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu through which application moved by the petitioner for summoning of respondents Nos.5 to 7 has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No.75 dated 26-3-2004, registered under section 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu,, who has stated therein that he is Zamindar by profession. At about four months earlier, Mst. Farzana daughter of Ameer came to his house and his daughter Mst. Allah Rakhi was taken with her. When till evening his daughter Mst. Allah Rakhi did not come back, complainant went to the house of Mst. Farzana to inquire about his daughter who told that Mst. Allah Rakhi had gone back after a short while. Thecomplainant became worried and was starting to search his daughter, when the witnesses told him that just before some time, Mst. Allah Rakhi had been seen in the company of Muhammad Ramzan and Shaukat going towards Chak No.117/15-L while boarding in a Rickshaw. The complainant contacted Muhammad Ramzan and Shaukat for the return of his daughter namely Mst. Allah Rakhi but they did not return her. Hence, this case.

3. After registration of the case, the petitioner filed W.P. No.2059 of 2004 in this Court for the recovery of his daughter Mst. Allah Rakhi in which direction was issued to the police to recover said Mst, Allah Rakhi. In compliance of the said direction, Mst. Allah Rakhi after her recovery was produced in the Court by the S.H.O., who alleged that Mst. Allah Rakhi had contracted marriage with Muhammad Ramzan with lier free - will and consent and she had left the house of her own after some quarrel with her parents. However, he undertook that if it was found during investigation that any other body including Shaukat had abducted said Mst. Allah Rakhi, he would also be challaned whereupon the said writ petition was disposed of on 8-9-2004.

4. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the investigation filed private complaint against respondents Nos.2 to 4, who were summoned to face the trial. During the pendency of the trial the petitioner submitted an application for recording statement of Mst. Allah Rakhi the alleged abductee, who according to him was recovered in the meanwhile. The statement of the petitioner was recorded as P.W. who only nominated respondents Nos.2 to 4 and statement of Mst. Allah Rakhi was recorded as P.W.2, on 9-4-2004 who named respondents Nos.5 to 7 as well alleging that after her abduction by respondents Nos.2 to 4, respondent No.5 had confined her in a house and respondents Nos.6 and 7 had also committed Zina with her. Thereafter application was moved by the petitioner to summon respondents Nos.5 to 7 as well, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court through the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that sufficient evidence has been brought on the record to connect respondents Nos.5 to 7 with the commission of cognizable heinous offence but the learned trial Court has not summoned them on surmises and conjectures which order is .illegal and unlawful and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the contents of the F.I.R. in which names of respondents Nos.5 to 7 have not been mentioned by the petitioner as accused. Similarly, the petitioner also filed application to Justice of the Peace in which he did not mention the names of the said accused. Moreso in the examination-in?-chief while appearing as P.W.1, at the trial the petitioner has not named respondents Nos.5 to 7 in spite of that till that time Mst. Allah Rakhi was allegedly recovered, who was examined as P.W.2 on the same day and according to her the whole story was narrated to the petitioner. It is hard fact that Mst. Allah Rakhi the alleged abductee was recovered on 8-9-2004 and she was' produced in this Court during the proceedings of W.P. No.2059 of 2004 who claimed to have contracted marriage with her free-will and consent with Muhammad Ramzan and that nobody had abducted her but she had left the house of her own accord after quarrelling with her parents. S.H.O. after recording the statement of Mst. Allah Rakhi daughter of the petitioner recommended for cancellation of the case and complainant being dissatisfied with the cancellation of F.I.R. filed private complaint against respondents Nos.2 to

4. Their statements were recorded on 9-4-2005 on which date new story had been introduced by Mst. Allah Rakhi (P.W.2) regarding involvement of respondents Nos.5 to 7 as well. It appears that she has not made consistent statement. The possibility of false implication of respondents Nos.5 to 7 by her at the instance of her father of some ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. In view of contradictory statements of Mst. Allah Rakhi, the alleged abductee, her solitary statement cannot be believed to summon respondents Nos.5 to 7 as well to face the trial in the private complaint. Moreover, she has not been recovered from any of the said respondents in spite of that she claimed that they had confined her for about one month.

7. In view of above, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for summoning respondents Nos.5 to 7 to face trial in the present case through the impugned order, which is maintained and this revision petition is dismissed having no merits. N.H.Q./A-567/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.