PCRLJ 2008

2008 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION KALAR KAHAR DISTRICT CHAKWAL and 8 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2008-May-26
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION KALAR KAHAR DISTRICT CHAKWAL and 8 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 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 2008 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION KALAR KAHAR DISTRICT CHAKWAL and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Bilal Butt for Petitioner.
  • Malik Muhammad Safdar for Respondent No.3.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 491

Habeas corpus petition

Direction was issued to the S.H.O. for recovery of the alleged detenue, daughter of petitioner, but her recovery could not be effected at the given address and as such no roaming search could be made, particularly when it had come on record that she had contracted marriage with the respondent of her own free will

Petitioner was at liberty to get the case registered against the respondent for abduction of his 'daughter, if he felt that she had been abducted and she had not contracted marriage with the respondent with her free will

Petition was dismissed with the above observation.

Judgment & Decree

MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.

For recovery of Mst. Shumaila, daughter of petitioner, from the alleged illegal detention of respondent No.2, the instant petition was filed and S.H.O./respondent No.1 was directed to recover and produce the alleged detenue before this Court, but she could not be produced before this Court even today.

2. Today Iftikhar Ahmad, A.S.-I., present in Court, states that in fact the alleged detenue has contracted marriage with Waseem Abbas/ respondent No.2 and both of them are not traceable at the given address.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this Court has already issued specific direction for recovery of the alleged detenue, so the detenue should be got recovered from the illegal custody of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, father of Waseem Abbas/respondent No.2, has submitted Nikahnama of the alleged detenue Mst. Shumaila, which reveals that she has contracted marriage with Waseem Abbas/respondent No.2 on 10-3-2008. Rukhsati certificate issued by Union Council No.8/Bhoon, Tehsil Kalar Kahar, District Chakwal has also been produced in support of Nikahnama. Photocopy of statement, dated 13-5-2008 of the alleged detenue made before the learned Magistrate, Chakwal, has also been produced. According to which, she has levelled allegations against the petitioner that petitioner himself had got contracted her Nikah with Muhammad Ilyas against considerable amount and then divorce was obtained from said Muhammad Ilyas, as such the petitioner is a greedy person and now he wants that she may get divorce again from Waseem Abbas; and now she wants to live with her husband Waseem Abbas.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record. Undoubtedly direction was issued for recovery of the alleged detenue to respondent No.1, but A.S.-I., present in Court, has stated that recovery of the alleged detenue could not be effected at the given address. As such no roaming search can be made. Particularly in the circumstances when it has come on record that she has contracted marriage with respondent No.2 with her free will. However, the petitioner is at liberty to get the case registered against Waseem Abbas for abduction of the alleged abductee, if he feels that his daughter has been abducted and she has not contracted marriage with Waseem Abbas with her free will.

6. This petition with the above observation stands dismissed. N.H.Q./M-207/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.