MLD 2025

2025 PLP 201 (MLD)

Kulsoom and another — Petitioners Versus Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Sindh and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2024-July-26
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 PLP 201 (MLD)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties Kulsoom and another — Petitioners Versus Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Sindh and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 201 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 201 (MLD)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 201 (MLD) (Kulsoom and another — Petitioners Versus Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Sindh and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Mujeeb-ur-Rahman for Respondent along with private respondents.
  • Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh and to learned Prosecutor General Sindh for 22.7.2024 with directions to appear and assist this Court. Meanwhile, the petitioners shall not be harassed by the private respondents. The SHO as well as SSP concerned are directed to ensure that no harassment shall be caused to the petitioners."

Headnotes / Summary

Arts.4, 9, 10, 10-A, 24, 35 & 199

Marriage out of free consent

Sui juris lady

Harassment by police in matrimonial affairs

Allegation of contracting second marriage in presence of first marriage

Registration of criminal case

Highhandedness of police officials in league with private persons

Main objectives of police is to apprehend offenders, investigate crimes and prosecute them before the Courts and also to prevent the commission of crime, and above all ensure the law and order to protect citizen's life and property

Law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender, but unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled

Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from the Courts but they have failed to have any corrective effect

In the present case Station House Officer (SHO) concerned ensured that he would conduct a fair and impartial investigation of the criminal case and would submit a report to the concerned Magistrate for appropriate order

Private persons had also furnished their personal bond to High Court that no action shall be taken on their part

High Court disposed of the petition, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J.

This Court vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed the following orders: "Per learned counsel, the petitioners Mst. Kulsoom and Hussain Dino have contracted marriage out of their own freewill and choice, however, on account of the ill will of the parents of petitioner No.1 she has been harassed and there is likelihood that they may lodge FIR against the couple, who are living happily. Affidavit of freewill and Nikahnama have been placed on record. - Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh and to learned Prosecutor General Sindh for 22.7.2024 with directions to appear and assist this Court. Meanwhile, the petitioners shall not be harassed by the private respondents. The SHO as well as SSP concerned are directed to ensure that no harassment shall be caused to the petitioners."

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that private respondents in connivance with the local Police are harassing them and interfering in their matrimonial affairs, without lawful justification, hence they have filed the instant constitutional petition against the highhandedness of official respondents who are in league with private respondents claiming that there is marriage over marriage issue. This point cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, it is for the competent forum to decide the subject issue if approached by the parties.

3. Admittedly, this is a case of harassment at the hands of police in connivance with private respondents. The meaning of the word "harass". has been explained as "Injure and injury"; these words have numerous and comprehensive popular meanings, as well as having a legal import. A line may be drawn between these words and the word "harass" excluding the latter from being comprehended within the word "injure" or "injury". The synonyms of "harass" are: Weary, tire, perplex, distress tease, vex, molest, trouble, and disturb. They all have relation to mental annoyance." In the Qxford Dictionary of New Words, the meaning of the word "harassment" has been explained, which reads as "The subjection of a person to aggressive pressure or intimidation. "Harassment" should he interpreted as potentially producing some unreasonably adverse impact on the victim. The conduct should produce more than "worry", "trouble", "discomfort", or "unease" unless perhaps these are experienced to an extreme degree."

4. The main objectives of police is to apprehend offenders, investigate crimes, and prosecute them before the courts also to prevent the commission of crime, and above all ensure law and order to protect citizens' life and property. The law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled. Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other courts but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it.

5. The police has the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The plenty of this power casts an obligation on the police and it must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated. Primarily, the Police Officers are required to protect and not abduct.

6. The official respondent including the private respondents present in the Court submitted that no harassment shall be caused to the petitioners and they will act under the law. Learned counsel representing the private respondents submits that Rasheed Ahmed lodged FIR No.1109/2024, under Section 496-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Sachal against the petitioners for contacting marriage over marriage, and the petitioners are required to be interrogated by the Investigating Officer.

7. Station House Officer present in the Court submits that he will conduct a fair and impartial investigation of FIR 1109 of 2024 and will submit his report to the concerned Magistrate for appropriate order. Learned counsel for the private respondents is satisfied with the aforesaid proposition and seeks disposal of the Constitution Petition in terms of the statement of SHO. Be that as it may, since this Court has already restrained the SHO not to cause harassment to the petitioners, however, one Rasheed Ahmed who claims to be the previous husband of petitioner No.1 lodged such FIR, which tantamounts violation of this Court's order dated 02.07.2024 and this was the reason this Court vide order dated 22.07.2024 directed that no further action shall be taken on the subject FIR and directed that the private respondents shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each before the Nazir of this Court with the assurance that no harassment shall be caused to the petitioners.

8. The private respondents are present along with their counsel state that they have complied with the order and have furnished personal bond before the Nazir of this Court as such no further action is required on their part. Their statement is tenable and this petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the statement of learned counsel representing the private respondents as well as SHO who is present in person; however, it is made clear that if there is any private/civil dispute between the parties, the same shall be dealt with by the competent court of law/forum and this Court will not travel into that dispute and leave it for the competent forum to redress the same if approached by the aggrieved party under the law within a reasonable time, so far as the issue of marriage over marriage is concerned. As far as police harassment issues are concerned, the DIG East has to see the matter and take prompt action under the law, if the petitioners approach him, however, that is subject to a fact-finding inquiry to be conducted by the DIG Police East about the highhandedness of the police of the area in connivance with private respondents. SA/K-12/Sindh Order accordingly.