1996 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. FATIMA — Applicant Versus KAMIL SHAH and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. FATIMA — Applicant Versus KAMIL SHAH and 5 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. FATIMA — Applicant Versus KAMIL SHAH and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Applicant, seeking recovery of his two sons and daughter-in-law, had alleged that respondents came to her house about 8 days back and after robbing her gold and cash they also took away her minor son and that they had also confined illegally in their wrongful custody his other son and daughter-in-law
Prior to application of applicant, father of alleged daughter-in-law of applicant had got registered F.I.R. against son of applicant under Ss.11 & 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 wherein he had alleged that his daughter had been abducted by son of applicant
Held such F.LR. being earlier in time than application of applicant, obvious inference was that application for recovery of detenus had been filed by applicant by way of counterblast and to pressurise respondents
Prayer sought by applicant in her application, thus, could not be granted.
Judgment & Decree
Wazir v. S.H.O., Mahboob Kalhoro Police Station 1990 PCr.LJ 2006 ref. Ghulam Mustafa Gopang for Applicant. Ahmed Ali Shaikh for Private Respondents. Abdul Ghani Memon, for A.A.-G. This application has been moved under section 491, Cr.P.C. with a prayer that orders be issued for recovery of detenus Mst. Zubeda, Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Jaffer. According to the applicant, she is mother of said Ghulam Nabi and his younger brother Jaffer while Mst. Zubeda is the daughter of one Muhammad Usman and that she had married with said Ghulam Nabi. According to the applicant, about 8 days back the respondents Nos.1 to 5 came to the house of the applicant and after robbing her of gold and cash they also took away her minor son Jaffer. It is, however, not alleged in the application if Ghulam Nabi or Mst. Zubeda were also taken away by these respondents but in para. 7 of the application it is stated that they are also confined illegally in wrongful custody with respondents Nos.1 to
5. In these circumstances, the present applicant has made this application with the said prayer. Of course the applicant does not seek any remedy to lodge the F.I.R. in the case as the robbery and kidnapping is also alleged. Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh learned counsel who has appeared for the said private respondents has stated that the present applicants have suppressed the factual aspect. He has pointed out that on 18-5-1995 the father of the said minor Mst. Zubeda had got registered F.I.R. No.30/95 at Hari Police Station under section 11/16 of Zina Ordinance wherein he has alleged that his daughter Mst. Zubeda has been abducted by Ghulam Nab4 the son of the present applicant. This F.I.R. being earlier in time than the present application, has been filed by way of counterblast and to pressurise the said respondents. In such circumstances the prayer sought by the applicant cannot possibly be granted. Reliance is placed on the case of Wazir v. S.H.O. Mahboob Kalhoro Police Station 1990 PCr.LJ 2006. In view of above discussion I find no force in this application which is dismissed. However, it will be open for the applicant to file a direct complaint if so desired. H.B.T./F-243/K Applicant dismissed.