1988 PLP 233 (MLD)

This is a revision under section 435 read with section 439, Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 7‑12‑1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (West) in family Appeal No. Sb of 1987, directing that a case be registered against the applicant under section 193, ,Cr.P.C. and bailable warrants be issued against her. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant was married with respondent No.l. She filed a suit for recovery of dower of Rs.7,000 and golden and silver ornaments. The suit was decreed by the Family Court.' The respondent No.l filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Karachi (West), who by his judgment dated 7th December, 1987 allowed the appeal partly and held that the applicant/plaintiff had received ornaments in accordance with the Nikahnama, and therefore, the decree regarding recovery of ornaments was set aside, and it was further ordered that since she had given false evidence in lower Court on oath, a case be registered against her under section 193, Cr.P.C. and warrants be issued. It has been contended by Miss Wajahat Niaz that the learned District Judge had erred in holding that the Nikahnama shows that the ornaments which were to be given towards dower were already given to the applicant. That the original Nikahnama which has been produced alongwith the revision application clearly shows that neither the amount of dower nor the ornaments were given to the applicant at the time of marriage. That even otherwise the applicant was a woman, and it was in‑expedient in the interest of justice to order her prosecution. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned AA.‑G. appearing for the State has contended that in view of the above circumstances the order regarding prosecution of the applicant was unwarranted and was liable to be set aside. Mr. A.R. Baloch learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has conceded that he has no objection if the order regarding prosecution of the applicant was set aside. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel, and have gone through the documents produced alongwith the revision application. It is not clear from the original Nikahnama produced by the applicant that the applicant was actually paid the ornaments at the time of marriage. The Nikahnama only shows that the ornaments were payable on demand. Even otherwise section 476 empowers the Court to take action under section 193, P.P.C., but while ordering prosecution the Court has to see whether it was expedient in the interest of justice that a person liable under section 193, P.P.C. should be prosecuted. In the present case the applicant is a woman, and the Nikahnama does not show that the A ornaments were actually handed over to her at the time of marriage, therefore, it was in‑expedient to order prosecution of the applicant under section 193, P.P.C. I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (West) to the extent it directs prosecution of the applicant under section 193, P.P.C. S.A./N‑95/K Petition accepted.