2005 PLP 1040 (YLR)
SHAUKAT ALI — Appellant Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1040 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Hakim Ali, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI — Appellant Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1040 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1040 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Hakim Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1040 (YLR) (SHAUKAT ALI — Appellant Versus D.P.O. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Mehmood Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.491
Application earlier filed by applicant before Sessions Judge having been dismissed, he had filed the same before High Court
To get recovery of detinus under S.491, Cr.P.C., read with S.561-A, Cr.P.C., it was necessary that whereabouts of detinus and place should be mentioned or pointed out by applicant
Applicant had not been able to locate and disclose any such place from where recovery of detinus could be made
Registration of F.I.R. with regard to occurrence, had already been made so as to trace rest of accused and recover alleged detinus
Application, in circumstances was rightly dismissed by Sessions Judge
Applicant could approach local police with whom investigation was in progress, if he was not satisfied with progress of investigation.
Judgment & Decree
Shaukat Ali, the petitioner has filed this petition under section 491 of the Cr.P.C. for recovery of his wife, Mst. Rani and minor son Muhammad Ramzan, aged about 6 years, allegedly kept in illegal and improper custody of respondents Nos.3 to
6. Earlier to this petition, Shaukat Ali has filed an application under section 491 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur but that application was dismissed on 26-6-2004. Hence this petition.
2. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner and the petition was competent and it was the duty of the Court to get recovered the wife and son of the petitioner.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the record.
4. From the record, it reveals that Mst. Rani and her minor son Muhammad Ramzan were allegedly abducted in case F.I.R. No.160 of 2003 dated 22-6-2003, lodged with Police Station, Abbas Nagar under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered against the above noted respondents. It was stated before learned Sessions Judge that Faiz Bakhsh, one of the respondents, was under arrest in the case and was in the custody of police. He was fully interrogated but even after the use of this method, the police had not been able to get any clue with regard to the alleged illegal detention of the wife and minor son of the petitioner. The above noted respondents have been declared to be proclaimed offenders and at present not traceable.
5. To get the recovery of detinus under section 491 read with section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that whereabouts of the detinus and the place shall be mentioned or pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not been able to locate and disclose any such place from where the recovery could be made. The registration of F.I.R. with regard to the occurrence as noted above, has already been made, so as to trace the rest of the accused and recover the alleged detinus. So , this application has rightly been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the petitioner can approach the local police with whom the investigation is in progress, if he is not satisfied with the pace and progress of the investigation, he can have redressal of the grievance from the superior of that force as provided by law. But this application being misconceived is, therefore, disposed of as such. H.B.T./S-223/L Order accordingly.