1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363/109‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Quashing of proceedings pending before trial Court in a private complaint‑‑Alleged abductee being sui juris contracting marriage with one of accused of her own free will vide a registered Nikahnama‑ Alleged abductee filing application before Deputy Commissioner stating therein that she had deserted house of her father of her own free will‑‑Said application filed four years prior to alleged date of abduction‑ Age of abductee on date of abduction found to be about twenty‑three years‑‑No reliable evidence found on record which if remained un-rebutted would constitute an offence of abduction or could form basis for conviction of accused‑‑Proceedings in private complaint were held male fide which amounted to abuse of process of Court‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances. Naeem Koreja for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioners. Naeem Koreja for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983. Ghulam Nabi son of Kamal Din complainant filed a private complaint against Muhammad Nazir and 3 others in the Court of Jam Jan Muhammad. Magistrate 1st Class, Khanewal on 5‑1‑1973, complaining that his daughter Mst. Akhtar Parveen a minor aged 14 years had been kidnapped a month prior to the filing of the complaint from his house by the accused/ petitioners.
2. The learned Magistrate having recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant and P.Ws. Abdul Qayyum and Baqir Khan summoned the accused /petitioners under section 363/109, P.P.C. vide order, dated 5‑1‑1973 through bailable warrants. Against this order the accused/ petitioners have filed the instant quashment petition.
3. The accused /petitioners have not appeared despite P.C.A.D. issued for today. I have gone through the record of the lower Court as well as the memo. of the petition and the documents appended therewith, with the assistance of the learned State counsel.
4. The case of Nazir petitioners is that Mst. Akhtar Parveen being sui juris, of her own free will had contracted marriage with him, on 25‑7‑1973 and the Nikah was registered according to the provisions of A Family Laws Ordinance. A copy of the Nikehnama is also appended with the petition. There is also a certified copy of application marked 'A' purported to have been moved by Mst. Akhtar Parveen to Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, on 8‑9‑1969, wherein she stated that her father wanted to give her in marriage to an old man and, therefore, she has deserted the house of her father of her own free will. Besides this a copy of school leaving certificate is also attached with the petition showing that she was student of Matric in the year 1973 and her date of birth is 13‑4‑1949. By working out this date, the age of the girl, on the alleged date of her abduction, would come to about 23 years. Besides this her application to Deputy Commissioner, dated back to the year 1969 i.e. four years prior to the date of abduction mentioned in the complaint. In these circumstances, in my view, there no reliable evidence available on record, which if remained unrebutted would constitute an offence of kidnapping or could form basis for the conviction of the petitioners /accused. The proceedings in the private complaint, therefore, are held to be mala fide which amount to abuse of process of the Court. Consequently, I quash these proceedings. H.A.K. Proceedings quashed