2004 PLP 1219 (MLD)
Mst. PARVEEN MAI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus D.I.G. MULTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1219 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | Mst. PARVEEN MAI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus D.I.G. MULTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1219 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1219 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1219 (MLD) (Mst. PARVEEN MAI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus D.I.G. MULTAN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Atif Munir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173, 221 & 227‑ --Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer, of investigation‑‑‑Framing and amending the charge‑‑‑If police after investigation had come to the conclusion that offence under S.354, P.P.C. was made out instead of under S.18 of ‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate, even then Trial Court had to see at the time of framing of charge as to what offence was committed by accused according to evidence collected by Police and the Court was not bound by the opinion of the police‑‑‑Court was empowered to amend the charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment if from the evidence so recorded at the trial any other offence was found to have been committed and could also send the case to competent authority for its transfer to the Court of competent jurisdiction if offence so made out was not triable by him‑‑ Complainant/petitioner who had sought transfer of investigation had contended that she wanted to make a supplementary statement to get recorded her correct version before Police‑‑‑Petitioner had failed to point out any provision of law to permit recording of such statement‑‑‑If petitioner seeking transfer of investigation was not satisfied with the investigation or the contents of F.I.R., she could file a private complaint which was also an adequate and efficacious remedy.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation in case F.I.R No.32 of 2004 registered on 26‑1‑2004 under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) at Police Station Sarai Sidhu District, Khanewal on the application of the petitioner.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. is that respondent No.4 Nasir caught hold of the petitioner from her arm and tried to open the string of her shalwar by force in order to commit zina with her. Due to the arrival of the witnesses as a result of the hue and cry of the petitioner, said accused left her and fled away from the, place of occurrence. The petitioner also moved application to the learned Sessions Judge, for the transfer of the investigation which has been dismissed vide order dated 17‑2‑2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the supplementary statement of the petitioner is not being recorded by the police inspite of the fact that her correct version was not recorded in her statement under section 154, Cr.P.C which was not read over to her before she thumb‑marked the same and opinion of the police that the offence under section 354, P.P.C. is only made out according to the contents of F.I.R. is not correct but according to the facts and circumstances of the case offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 is clearly made out and the petitioner intends to produce the witnesses before the investigating Officer for recording their correct version.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The F.I.R. was recorded on 26‑1‑2004. If the police after the investigation ha come to the conclusion that offence under section 354, P.P.C., is made out instead of section 18 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and challan is submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate, even then the learned trial Court has to see at the time of framing of charge as to what offence was committed by the accused‑petitioner according to the evidence collected by the police and the Court is not bound by the opinion of the police. Moreover, the Court is empowered to amend the charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment, if from the evidence so recorded at the trail any other offence is found to have been committed and can also send the case to the competent authority for its transfer to the Court of competent jurisdiction if the offence so made out is not triable by him.
5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wants to make a supplementary statement to get recorded her correct version before the police. The learned counsel has failed to point out any provision in the law to permit recording of such statement. It is generally noticed that it has become tendency in this region that after the recording of the F.I.R another version is introduced through the supplementary statement which cannot be appreciated as a matter of routine and if the petitioner‑ is not satisfied with the investigation or the contents of the F.I.R., she can file a private complaint which is also adequate and efficacious remedy.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P‑16/L Petition dismissed.